Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Royal Surrey Hospital

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement on the quality of service at the Royal Surrey hospital. [84996]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): It is the responsibility of management and doctors to ensure the quality of services provided locally.
Patients and general practitioners have a right to know that their local health service hospital is performing well. As a first step, we will be publishing hospital-based indicators shortly. On 28 May, it was announced that the Royal Surrey hospital would receive £276,000 from the accident and emergency modernisation fund to enable it to open up a medical admissions unit. The unit will reduce the need for patients to stay overnight in the accident and emergency department.

Mr. St. Aubyn: That contribution is welcome, but waiting lists at the Royal Surrey hospital are still higher than two years ago; the turnover of nursing staff has reached 28 per cent; and 20 per cent. of nursing staff places are currently unfilled. Since the abolition of the internal market, there has been a recurring deficit at the Royal Surrey of £1.4 million a year, which led to the closure last Saturday of one of the clinical wards. In the circumstances, when will the Government give the funding that the Royal Surrey needs to maintain the high standards that it has achieved in the past?

Mr. Denham: The truth is that the health authority has received 2.9 per cent. in real growth this year, and more than £800,000 extra will be available from the modernisation fund to tackle waiting lists. The Royal Surrey hospital has met and will meet its waiting list targets, and it will treat more patients than ever next year.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 58 per cent. of junior doctors at the Royal Surrey hospital are working more hours than are specified under the new deal?

Mr. Denham: The Government have made progress in implementing the new deal by improving the conditions for rest periods. We will continue to make progress, working with the junior doctors.

Miss Widdecombe: How does the hon. Gentleman match that statement with the national figures, which show that whereas only 16 per cent. of junior doctors were working beyond the 56-hour limit when we left office, some 28 per cent. are now working beyond that limit?

Mr. Denham: Because, as the right hon. Lady knows, the figures would show continued progress by the Government if they were seen on a comparable basis. We agreed with the junior doctors that there should be more stringent criteria for their rest periods, as that was in their interests and those of patients. Everyone accepted that bringing in the changes in December would produce a rise in the headline figures for non-compliance with the new deal. However, all the evidence suggests that the actual number of hours worked by junior doctors has not increased.

Miss Widdecombe: The figures for the Royal Surrey hospital fly in the face of what the hon. Gentleman has just said. At 31 March 1998, all 128 posts at the Royal Surrey hospital were declared to be compliant. By 30 September 1998—before the new monitoring criteria were imposed—12 per cent. of posts were not compliant with the hours in the new deal. That shows that the trend of increasing non-compliance started before the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State changed the criteria. When will we see the national figures which, mysteriously, are available, but have not been published?

Mr. Denham: The answer is the one that I have already given. The reason for the increase in the headline figure for non-compliance is the change in the definitions in the new deal. However, progress continues to be made, and there is no evidence that junior doctors are working longer hours. So far as any individual hospital is concerned, it is clearly the responsibility of the hospital management to work towards compliance with the new deal. One of the reasons why we are continuing to fund the regional task forces is to work with that minority of hospitals which have a minority of junior doctor places that are not compliant with the new deal.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: In my 15 years as a local Member of Parliament, there has not been a more severe situation at the Royal Surrey hospital. I would like to help the hon. Gentleman to help the hospital to make difficult decisions, but the options that it is now considering are not fair to patients. The area has one of the highest costs of living, high expectations and massive demand. The combination of the hon. Gentleman's decisions on health funding—among the lowest in the country—and the vindictive social services settlement means that the hospital cannot maintain the quality of service that is necessary. Will he personally look at the health and social services figures together?

Mr. Denham: It is an inescapable fact that the health service in the area has to deal with the deficit of about £18 million built up over two years under the previous Administration. Viewed nationally, the hospital is not typical. There has been considerable progress since we came to office in reducing the number of NHS trusts in serious financial difficulties.

Sexual Health (Women)

Fiona Mactaggart: What action he is taking to improve the sexual health of young women in Britain. [84997]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): My right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health announced on 23 March that the Department of Health will, over the coming year, develop a comprehensive strategy on sexual health. We expect to be in a position to announce in the very near future the membership of an expert group to steer the work.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does my hon. Friend share my concern about sexual ill-health among young women and the rate of chlamydia—a non-symptomatic sexually transmitted infection, most common among women between 16 and 19—with 630 cases per 100,000 women? Is he aware that research suggests that an integrated specialist service can ensure that young women are more likely to be tested for such infections, to be diagnosed and to avoid problems such as infertility and ectopic pregnancy in later life? Will he do more to ensure that specialist services not only focus on reproductive health but deal with sexually transmitted infections in an integrated way?

Mr. Hutton: My hon. Friend is certainly right to draw attention to the risks posed by chlamydia. The rate of infection rose significantly in the last year for which we have figures, with an increase of nearly 21 per cent. Nearly 22,500 young women were diagnosed with chlamydia infection. That is why the Department is trying to promote better awareness. We mounted two public awareness campaigns, targeted primarily at younger women. A booklet was issued through 19 magazine in March and distributed through further education colleges. We are expecting two pilot schemes—one in the Wirral and one in Portsmouth—to begin operating a chlamydia screening service for young women in the summer. The Government are taking action and I certainly recognise the strength of my hon. Friend's argument.

Mr. John Bercow: I accept that constructive sex education in schools can safeguard and even improve the sexual health of young women, but does the Minister agree that the recent suggestion from the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) that sex education should be available in schools to children of seven is wrong and will rightly be viewed with alarm by millions of people throughout the country?

Mr. Hutton: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's constructive comments about the importance of good health and sex education in schools. It is compulsory in secondary schools, and has been since 1994; at present, it is at the discretion of school governors in primary schools. I do not want to get involved in that argument today. It is important to recognise what good sex education can contribute. Of course it has to be appropriate to make a good contribution to promoting the sexual health of our young people. The Government are committed to that and we are taking the action that I have already outlined.

Ms Beverley Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware of recent research reported in the

British Medical Journal, concluding that teenage sexual health in Britain is not only bad but getting worse, with increases in terminations among the under-19s and in birth rates? In the context of a fall in cases of sexually transmitted diseases generally, we have had an increase in cases not only of chlamydia but of gonorrhoea among the young. Does he agree that, although sex education and contraception are essential parts of the strategy, they are by no means sufficient by themselves and we must tackle issues of social exclusion, education, parental involvement and indeed poverty?

Mr. Hutton: I agree strongly. My hon. Friend made several sensible and useful points. It is very much the Government's intention to approach these issues in a joined-up way, considering all the services that are available to young women. It is extremely important to improve the sexual health of our young people. We have the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in western Europe and very high rates of sexual infection among young people. That is not acceptable. The Government will address the issues and we are determined to improve the sexual health of our young people.

Dr. Evan Harris: In view of that answer, does the Minister accept the need for urgency and does he understand the concerns of the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Sex Education Forum about the initiative that he announced a minute ago? We are halfway through this Parliament and we are still awaiting the joint report from the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment on personal health and sex education and the report of the social exclusion unit on teenage pregnancy. I urge the Minister to consider becoming involved in the debate on sex education so that we can have a system, such as those in Scandinavia and Holland, of early, clear sex education which has delivered the lowest rates of teenage abortion and under-16 conception in Europe, instead of the highest, which we have.

Mr. Hutton: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest and concern, but I shall not take any lectures from him about the speed of the Government's response. We have responded quickly and are putting together a comprehensive strategy to address such issues in the near future. It is a clear priority for the Government to tackle them as quickly as we can, but that must be done in the right way. We have the elements of the strategy in place and that will make a significant contribution to improving the sexual health of young people in this country, which is what we want to do.

Cervical Screening

3. Laura Moffatt (Crawley): What plans he has to increase public confidence in cervical screening for women. [84998]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): It is vital that women have confidence in the cervical cancer screening system to identify early signs of abnormalities or to provide reassurance that none are present. The only way to increase such confidence is to provide services that justify it. That is why I announced


in December 1997 stringent new quality assurance arrangements to apply to all cancer screening services. This involves setting high standards, outside monitoring of those standards and external accreditation of the laboratories involved.

Laura Moffatt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I welcome the new targets and innovative methods for getting women to accept that screening is the best way to ensure that they maintain their good health. Is he aware that some commentators seek to undermine screening and suggest that it is somehow an invasive and nasty procedure that the medical profession do to women? Does he agree that screening is a partnership between women and health workers and that better methods of increasing take-up of screening will increase the numbers of women who survive—some 1,300 a year currently—and who would not do so without screening?

Mr. Dobson: Certainly I accept the points that my hon. Friend makes. The new arrangements will raise standards, although no screening system can be 100 per cent. accurate. Our present system saves the lives of more than 1,300 women every year, and mortality rates from cervical cancer have fallen year on year. We are drawing up plans for a national publicity campaign to increase public understanding and confidence in the NHS cervical screening programme.

Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove): I was interested in the Secretary of State's response to the last question, but many women still die every year from cervical cancer despite the undoubted success of the national screening programme. What interest is his Department showing in the potential of a new technology to assist in the treatment of the disease? A company called Digene has a new product that could screen with an almost 100 per cent. success record according to the trials that have taken place so far. Will the right hon. Gentleman set up a pilot scheme to discover whether the product is as effective as it appears and, therefore, potentially save the lives of the many women who still die from that entirely treatable disease?

Mr. Dobson: My interest in cervical cancer screening did not commence when I became Secretary of State for Health. When I was the shadow health Minister more than a decade ago, I put together the first comprehensive report on screening call and recall schemes, which the then Government could not be bothered to do.
Since then, the system has been put in place. I have been pressing the various organisations involved and talking to the Cancer Research Campaign about new ways in which to carry out screening. It has always seemed to me that a change discernible to the human eye through a microscope must be the result of a chemical change. I understand that that approach is being pursued, although the necessary tests are being carried out largely in the United States.
I hope that that approach is successful. If so, it will improve the accuracy of screening, but it will not make it 100 per cent. accurate.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sure that the Secretary of State wants this country to have the best cancer screening processes

and to succeed in bringing down our cancer death rate, which is far worse than in many parts of Europe. Does he agree that that will require the best processes, technology and education system, and that we have all the necessary staff—nurses, doctors, consultants, and other professionals?
When will the Government announce that their policy for the health service will mirror their general election policy for the education service? Such an announcement would mean that, over this Parliament, the amount of our national wealth, as a proportion of national income, that is spent on our national health would increase. When will we begin to spend on our health service the same amount as most of our European neighbours spend on theirs?

Mr. Dobson: Rather than joining in the vague theorising that Liberal Democrat Members go in for because they will never be within a sniff of being in power, I shall address the point that the hon. Gentleman raises in relation to the amount that is paid to people working in the cervical cancer screening system. We have offered pay increases of between 6 and 26 per cent. to those who train cytoscreeners. To qualified cytoscreeners, we have offered an increase of 11 per cent. That reflects the difficulty of recruitment, the poor levels of pay that they have received in recent years, and the importance of their work, which is very demanding and which, up to now, has been badly paid.

Teenage Pregnancies

Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park): When he expects to publish the report of the social exclusion unit on teenage pregnancies. [84999]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): The social exclusion unit will be publishing its report very shortly.

Dr. Tonge: I thank the Minister for that welcome reply, although I wonder what the word "shortly" means. Does he share my shame that this country has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe? Does he connect that in any way with the reduction in the number of family planning clinics and the very poor quality of sex education over the past 18 years?
Does the hon. Gentleman also recall that there was no mention of teenagers' sexual health or of teenage pregnancies in the Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation"? We have waited longer than two years for the social exclusion unit report, and it will be at least another year before the report on teenagers' sexual health is ready. When will we see some action?

Mr. Hutton: In my earlier response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), I described those areas in which the Government are already taking action to deal with some of the problems arising from sexual health and pregnancies among teenagers. The hon. Lady is usually right, but she was wrong to say that we have waited two years for the social exclusion unit report. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister commissioned that report last July, and we expect it to be published very soon.
However, I agree that action needs to be taken to reduce teenage pregnancies, which are four times more common here than in France, and six times more common than in the Netherlands. That is not acceptable, as a consequence of teenage pregnancies is social exclusion at a crucial time in young women's lives. The Government are taking action. We have announced the formation of a national comprehensive strategy, led by an expert task group, whose composition will be announced shortly. The Government are committed to taking action, and are doing so.

Mr. John Healey: Before finalising his plans for reducing teenage pregnancies, would my hon. Friend encourage health authorities to consider the lessons learned in pioneering baby-doll projects run in Rawmarsh and Wath-upon-Dearne? Fourteen-year-olds are given life-like dolls to look after, and the dolls wake at night, scream, feed and much more. Half those who took part in the projects said that the age at which they would wish to have children was a lot higher than it had been beforehand. Will my hon. Friend congratulate the Rotherham youth workers, Karen Kirby, Ann Brown, Pat Hickling and Sue White, on pioneering the projects?

Mr. Hutton: I am happy to endorse what my hon. Friend has said about that work. The experience of young children to which he has referred was certainly my own experience when I first became a father. My hon. Friend confirms that action is already being taken up and down the country. Many health action zones are doing pioneering work to develop new approaches to tackling teenage pregnancy. We support that work, and we want to spread best practice around the country.

Aricept

Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): If he will make a statement on (a) the level of take-up and (b) regional disparities in the take-up of Aricept in the NHS. [85000]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): Donepezil hydrochloride— Aricept—was prescribed by general practitioners in the national health service in all health authorities in England over the 12-month period ending March 1999. At a regional level, the number of prescriptions per 100,000 population aged 60 years and over varied from 58 in west midlands to 339 in Trent, with an average of 170 for each region.

Dr. Cable: I thank the Minister, but does he agree that those figures demonstrate the enormous regional disparity that is already clear to many patients and their carers? In some areas, prescriptions are freely available, but in others, patients can obtain them only at the considerable cost of around £150 a month. In view of the growing clinical evidence of the benefits of the drug and of the enormous help it gives victims and carers, does the Minister accept that the drug should be included in the first round of drugs appraised by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence?

Mr. Denham: Two important points must be made. First, Aricept, which is licensed for treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer' s disease, is a symptomatic

treatment, and there is no evidence that it affects the progression of the underlying disease. Secondly, I am advised that it has not been widely prescribed to date because of concern that the moderate improvements it brings in cognitive function tests may not necessarily translate into worthwhile clinical and social benefits. The variation in the figures that I have given probably reflects differing attitudes among specialists to use of the drug. Research projects are under way, and a large trial organised by the NHS in the west midlands is covering 3,000 patients. In addition, it is likely that NICE will at some point be asked to consider drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.

Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton): NICE may attempt to iron out regional disparities in the availability of drugs such as Aricept, but has not its chairman, Professor Rawlins, already admitted that he will rule out advocating the use of drugs that NICE considers to be too expensive, even if they are highly clinically effective? Can the Minister name just one respectable organisation prepared to support his absurd claim that there is no rationing in our national health service?

Mr. Denham: Clinicians in the NHS want NICE to offer consistent guidance on the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of treatments. There has been wide support from a variety of professional bodies for the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence precisely because people know that such guidance will be made available.

Smoking

Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston): What guidance has been issued to the NHS about developing smoking cessation services. [85001]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): Guidance was issued on 16 April 1999 to the NHS on the development of new NHS smoking cessation services. Up to £60 million will be available over the next three years, initially in health action zones, to develop these new services.

Ms Stuart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Birmingham health authority leads the field in smoking reduction. Recently, about 110,000 free guides to a smoke-free Birmingham were delivered to C2, D and E households. In his reply, the Minister said that extra money is to go to health action zones. Will he say whether, in future, money will go to authorities such as Birmingham, which are not health action zones but which nevertheless lead the field in that area, to support their good work?

Mr. Hutton: Again, I am happy to join my hon. Friend in supporting the excellent work that is done in Birmingham. The smoke-free Birmingham campaign is an excellent model for other partners to explore. The first year of the new three-year programme of promoting smoking cessation services will be focused on health action zones, but in years two and three we expect the benefits to be spread more widely throughout England. We expect £20 million to be spent in year two and £30 million the year after, throughout the country.

HIV

Mr. Peter Brooke: How he will ensure that health authorities use the HIV prevention special allocation in ways appropriate to the epidemiology of HIV. [85003]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): The forthcoming guidance to health authorities on the use of HIV and AIDS special allocations will emphasise the need to match funding of prevention initiatives to the local situation and highlights the target groups identified in the current HIV health promotion strategy.

Mr. Brooke: Can the Secretary of State confirm that HIV-AIDS strategy will strengthen targeting work with the three communities that the all-party hearings last summer regarded as most at risk—first, gay and bisexual men, secondly, African people and, thirdly, injecting drug users—if that analysis was correct?

Mr. Dobson: I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that we want to target the effort and we want people in the national health service to target in particular those three groups that are most at risk. However, we do not want to concentrate all the effort exclusively on them because we need to ensure that groups that are near the boundary are also properly covered and protected. That is the way that we can stop AIDS spreading among groups of people who are not at present particularly susceptible.

Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow): Given that there are about 2,500 new infections of HIV a year and that the Public Health Laboratory Service Board still states that HIV is the most important communicable disease in the country, as well as advising health authorities, will my right hon. Friend consider what can be done to strengthen monitoring systems so that we regularly get meaningful and consistent data on how each health authority is spending and using money to target those people who are most at risk?

Mr. Dobson: I do not know whether I am disclosing things that I should not disclose, but I have been spending considerable time with my officials to try to ensure that what my hon. Friend asks for is done.

Maternity Units

Mr. Andy King: What research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the feasibility of midwifery—led maternity units. [85004]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): The NHS research and development programme is funding two relevant studies, "Re-designing postnatal care: a randomised controlled trial of protocol based midwifery-led care", and the "Extension of an established clinical data set to address the effect of structural variables on the process and outcomes of United Kingdom maternity units". In addition, evaluation of the midwifery-led unit at the Royal Bournemouth hospital has been funded by Dorset health authority and evaluation of the Edgware birth centre has been commissioned by Barnet health authority.

Mr. King: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that he would wish to join me in congratulating

Warwickshire health authority on the positive work that it is undertaking to re-evaluate the way in which maternity services are delivered throughout the county. I hope that my hon. Friend will also join me in supporting the authority's continued research into bringing about a pilot midwifery-led unit at the Hospital of St. Cross in Rugby.

Mr. Hutton: I certainly pay tribute to my hon. Friend on his campaign to promote and defend maternity services in his constituency. He may be aware that Warwickshire health authority has been carrying out a survey of women's views of maternity services throughout the county. As a result, the authority will be reconsidering the future configuration of maternity services in Rugby taking into account the views of local women and health professionals.

Mr. Philip Hammond: Midwives do a wonderful job, in which we all want to encourage and support them, but does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there is a need for a consultant presence to deal with problem cases? Does he share the concerns of the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy about the lack of consultant input in such cases? Will he confirm that by 2001, each year, 500 specialists in obstetrics and gynaecology will be chasing only 50 consultant posts, and that as a result, many of them will leave the national health service? Is it not a scandal that those expensively trained, badly needed doctors are being thrown on the scrap heap because the Government will not fund the necessary NHS consultant posts?

Mr. Hutton: I can accept very little of that. The hon. Gentleman usually has something sensible to say, but I am afraid that today he did not. Research evaluating midwifery-led maternity services has been generally positive about their contribution. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently asked a multi-disciplinary working party, including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives and others, to develop criteria for ensuring that small maternity units, including those that provide a midwife-led service, can avoid closure while maintaining patient safety. I reject fundamentally the hon. Gentleman's attack on midwifery. The Government are committed to developing good-quality midwifery and maternity services, and that is what we will do.

Mr. David Drew: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind how important midwife-led services are in rural areas, where they add greatly to choice? Will he note the importance of general practitioners, who can make or break such units? Will he encourage the health service to talk to GPs to ensure that they are aware of their benefits?

Mr. Hutton: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government remain fully committed to the principles of woman-centred maternity services that offer women greater choice, continuity of care and control. We will bear my hon. Friend's comments in mind.

Breast Cancer

Mr. Andrew George: What assessment he has made of the influence of diet and environmental factors on the incidence of breast cancer. [85005]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): The causation of most breast cancers is complex and has not been established but may involve several dietary, hormonal, environmental and hereditary factors. The influence of diet and nutrition on the incidence of breast cancer was considered by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy in the 1998 report "Nutritional Aspects of the Development of Cancer", a copy of which is in the Library.

Mr. George: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. While it is of course necessary to co-ordinate proper screening, detection and treatment of breast cancer, does he agree that understanding the causes is as important—possibly more so—in the long run? Some companies produce arguably carcinogenic agrochemicals while making vast profits out of breast cancer treatments such as Tamoxifen. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to give proper priority to research and its dissemination, so that perhaps this country will follow others in banning lindane?

Mr. Hutton: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said. He knows that the Government support a wide variety of research programmes examining this area and others. The Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment recently considered the potential association between organochloride insecticides, which I think are the hon. Gentleman's concern, and breast cancer. I expect that it will prepare a draft statement at its June meeting, which should be available for publication early in July.

Miss Melanie Johnson (Welwyn Hatfield): Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the importance of improving and modernising the equipment available for the detection of breast cancer? I believe that £100 million of lottery money will be made available for that. When, and on what projects will it be spent?

Mr. Hutton: I strongly agree with what my hon. Friend says; it is important that new investment goes into improving cancer services. The sum of more than £100 million from the new opportunities fund will make a most significant contribution to doing that. We expect the first resources to be available during the winter.

Health Trusts Merger (Lincolnshire)

Mr. Edward Leigh: If he will make a statement on the proposed merger of health trusts in Lincolnshire. [85006]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): Ministers are currently considering a proposal from NHS Executive Trent to carry out a public consultation on a possible merger of the three Lincolnshire acute trusts: Grantham and District Hospital NHS trust, Lincoln and Louth NHS trust and Pilgrim Health NHS trust.

Mr. Leigh: As he sits in London, does the Minister understand the real fear and concern of rural people that, as these mergers continue, it is the rural hinterlands that will suffer? People from those areas may lose their places

on the boards, and small hospitals, such as Gainsborough, will not receive the same level of commitment and energy that they enjoyed when they had their own health trusts.

Mr. Denham: We would never proceed with a merger of trusts unless we were convinced that patient care would benefit as a result. In addition to that overall criterion, we have set down some important tests, one of which is that mergers between NHS trusts would be expected to realise a minimum of £500,000 in bureaucracy savings within the first two years of going ahead. That money would be available for investment in front-line services. Trusts will not be forced to merge; the test is whether they would improve patient care. Clearly. that test must apply for all the patients whom they serve—not merely for some of them.

Private Finance Initiative

Mr. Derek Wyatt (Sittingbourne and Sheppey): How many private finance initiative community hospital schemes are awaiting decision by his Department. [85009]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): The private finance initiative scheme for a new community hospital in Sheppey, being taken forward by the Thameslink Gateway NHS trust, is one of a package of PFI schemes being negotiated with one consortium. Difficulties in resolving some of the outstanding issues on the most advanced of those schemes—that for Chichester—has held up progress on all the schemes. I expect the Chichester scheme to reach financial close shortly. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased with that, because it should mean that, within the next two months, the trust in his area will know whether it has a viable scheme to build the much-needed community hospital in Sheppey.

Mr. Wyatt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply—although he has stolen some of my thunder. That particular PH scheme on the Isle of Sheppey has been going for three and a half years and £1 million has been spent so far on legal fees for a scheme costing only —10 million. What my constituents are most concerned about is that, if the scheme does not go ahead, we will not have a hospital. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that matter?

Mr. Dobson: That was one of the innumerable shambles that we inherited from the Conservatives. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] It is no good moaning£it was. It is as simple as that. We have gone a long way towards sorting things out; that is why 12 major PF1 hospitals are being built already and there are dozens of smaller schemes. Provided that the Chichester scheme is okay, I expect the Sheppey scheme to go ahead. What is crucial is that, if the scheme cannot be undertaken through the PFI, we shall have to use other methods. The people of Sheppey are entitled to a decent community hospital, and that is what we are determined to provide—one way or another.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood): I am pleased to welcome the fact that the Government are continuing to develop the private finance initiative for hospital


building. May we be precisely clear about the Government's position? Would it be accurate to say that, in relation to the ancillary services of the national health service, the present Government are more effective privatisers of those services than their predecessors? Is that the Secretary of State's position?

Mr. Dobson: No, it is not. Given that, for countless decades, the average cost overrun for major hospital developments was 20 per cent.—so that the NHS got five hospitals for the price of six—the main thing that we are privatising is the cost overruns. Under the PH, if there are any cost overruns, the private sector will have to meet them-not the taxpayer.

Mrs. Eileen Gordon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the delay in the PFI decision on Oldchurch hospital in Romford is causing great anxiety within the community and having an impact on the modernisation of other health service facilities—for example, the overdue reprovision of Warley hospital, which should have been closed years ago? The delay is even having an impact on the local authority's review of leisure facilities in Havering. Are we likely to have a decision soon?

Mr. Dobson: I certainly hope that we shall have a decision soon. However, it has to be said that, until the Labour Government entered office, no decision was taken, even in principle, to go ahead with the new hospital at Oldchurch, so it is no good any of the local Tories moaning—their Government did nothing about the matter for 18 years.

Audit Commission NHS Management Letter

Mr. David Heath: If he will make it his policy to publish the annual Audit Commission NHS management letter. [85010]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): The Audit Commission does not produce an NHS management letter. However, it does prepare a summary of the findings of its appointed auditors, and the decision on whether to publish that summary is for the Audit Commission. The view of the Department is that publication would duplicate the statutory work of the National Audit Office, which covers similar ground in its annual report to Parliament on the NHS accounts. The NAO report is, of course, published.

Mr. Heath: That is extraordinary. Is the Minister aware that, year after year, members of the Audit Commission asked the previous Secretary of State to allow publication, but that their request was always refused? The current Secretary of State has continued the practice of refusing to allow publication. Is the Minister aware that, at the end of next month, the Audit Commission will produce a package containing the annual report and the management letter—as it is usually described—for local authorities in England, for local authorities in Wales and for the police authorities, but that the one package it cannot publish is the one for the health service, because the Secretary of State will not allow it? Is that freedom of information?

Mr. Denham: I repeat: the decision on whether to publish is for the Audit Commission. However, I do not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman: the Department's view is that the summary is valuable, and one of the reasons for that is that the informal status of the document allows for a degree of subjectivity which is quite helpful. To be frank, if the document were to be published, we would expect to agree the text, and the process of doing that would result in the document losing much of its value and many of the messages being lost.
The hon. Gentleman, who was an Audit Commissioner, will be aware that the NAO audits health accounts and the Audit Commission audits the accounts of local government. That is why it is quite appropriate for the Audit Commission to publish its local government management letter and for the NAO to fulfil the same function in respect of the NHS.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Before either the Audit Commission or the NAO produces its next letter or report, will the Secretary of State ask them to investigate the matter of young doctors' hours, and to take special note of the most serious aspect of the problem, which is young doctors who are on call but working continuously, with the result that they work continuously from 9 am one day to up to 5 pm the next? That is contrary to the Secretary of State's own health circular, so will he ask for a report to ensure that the practice is stopped?

Mr. Denham: As I said earlier, last December we agreed and introduced more stringent criteria for rest periods as part of the new deal. That is evidence of our commitment to work to improve the working conditions of junior doctors, not only because it is in the interest of junior doctors, but because it is in the interest of patients. I shall meet junior doctors to discuss that and other matters later this week.

Midwives (Grading)

Mr. John Randall: What plans he has to review the grading of midwives. [85011]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): In February, we published proposals on modernising the national health service pay system to provide midwives and nurses with a modern career structure to replace the current rigid grading system. The proposals have been generally welcomed and are now the subject of talks with representatives of the staff involved.

Mr. Randall: Is the Secretary of State able to give comfort to those in the profession who are seriously worried that continued recruitment at grade D will only bring further problems with recruitment?

Mr. Dobson: I can try to reassure members of the profession. As I said, our proposals for modernising health service pay are intended to give midwives and nurses a new, modern career structure, with three tiers to replace the current clinical grades, including grade D, and to enable progression within each tier for any individual midwife who takes on particular responsibilities or undertakes courses in professional development.

Hospital Services (East Kent)

15. Mr. Damian Green: If he will make a statement on the future of hospital services in East Kent. [85012]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): The future for hospital services in East Kent is bright. On 22 December I ended the years of uncertainty about the future of acute services in Canterbury, Ashford and Thanet. On 1 April a new single NHS trust was established to deliver the necessary changes and improvements, and a new chief executive has been appointed. In this financial year the trust will receive £221 million. It will also receive £2.2 million to be invested in accident and emergency services in East Kent. As the hon. Gentleman represents Ashford, he will be interested to know that a new MRI scanner will come into operation at the William Harvey hospital in Ashford.

Mr. Green: The Secretary of State is aware that the East Kent health authority had a budget deficit of £1.7 million this year and had to consider the option of closing one of the community hospitals in East Kent. As members of the local community health council are sure that the deficits will recur, can the Secretary of State give a guarantee that none of the community hospitals will close over the next few years as a result of such deficits?

Mr. Dobson: When we came to power, the national health service was running a deficit of more than £400 million a year. Last year it was down to about £20 million.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: When we in East Kent were debating the rationalisation of hospital services, I promised my constituents that, as a result of the change, they would get the best possible standard of care for everyone in East Kent, everywhere in East Kent. The investment announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shows that he, too, is committed to that. Does he accept, however, that because of the delays in appointing a chief executive to the new combined trust, some of the clinicians in that new trust have started to believe that people are dragging their feet and are not fully committed to implementing his recommendations? Will he ensure that they know that he expects them to get on with the job of implementing those recommendations and improving standards for everyone as quickly as possible?

Mr. Dobson: If the members of the new board can read, they should be perfectly clear that they are expected to implement the changes that were approved, because they were told that by me. I assume, therefore, that the new chief executive, whom they appointed, also understands that that must be the priority. We are determined to ensure that the health services in East Kent are first-rate for everyone in East Kent, not just at individual hospitals. After widespread public consultation and a proper decision, we cannot allow people to think that they can go back on that decision. The uncertainty is over. Progress must now be made.

NHS Trusts

Mr. Nigel Evans: What action he takes to encourage the retention of high-calibre non-executive directors of NHS trusts. [85013]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): If eligible for re-appointment, the best non-executive directors will always be encouraged to re-apply when their term of office is due to end. All appointments are made in accordance with the guidelines of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and the Department's own published procedures for NHS appointments.

Mr. Evans: If it is the policy to retain high-calibre non-executive directors, why did the Secretary of State sack three high-calibre non-executive directors of the Guild Community Health Care NHS trust in Preston? Why is not the Secretary of State answering the question, as he sacked them? What message does that send to non-executive directors throughout the country?

Mr. Denham: We will be discussing this matter at greater length during tonight's Adjournment debate, but I shall briefly give the background. After a series of events—critical reports on the trust, the suspension of the chief executive and the resignation of the chair—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State concluded that, although he did not apportion any individual blame to non-executive board members for the serious problems that occurred, it was not in the interests of the Guild trust or the NHS for the previous non-executive board members to stay in post. A new chair and a full team of new non-executive board members have now been appointed.

Audrey Wise: Will my hon. Friend also consider the value of high-calibre chief executive officers such as the chief executive officer in the Guild community trust, whose excellent work included winning the confidence of ethnic minorities and patients' families as well as the creation of unique, award-winning provision for suffers from late-stage Huntington's disease? Less than a year ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State himself put an award into the hands of the chief executive, who has been victimised on the basis of unsubstantiated assertions which are not backed up by evidence.

Mr. Denham: In my view, the proper procedures have been followed and, in respect of the way in which the Guild trust has handled those matters, there has been proper consultation with the regional office. If anything, my hon. Friend's comments reinforce my view that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was absolutely right to get a fresh start for the trust so that it can build on its record and provide good patient care in the future.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Minister agree that non-executive directors of NHS trusts ought to be remunerated? If so, does he believe that there is a case for looking at that question, particularly as it is some years since the remuneration was fixed?

Mr. Denham: As the hon. Gentleman suggests, non-executive directors are remunerated, but I am not


aware of any immediate plans to review that remuneration. Across the country, we are able to attract candidates of excellent background and qualities who are willing to serve the NHS in that capacity, and we are grateful to them for that.

Private Health Care (Elderly People)

Helen Jackson: What action he is taking to amend the regulation of private health care for the elderly. [85014]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): The Government set out their plans for regulating nursing and residential homes, domiciliary care and other social services in the White Paper "Modernising Social Services". We also made a commitment to consider further the regulation of health care and, in fulfilling it, we will shortly be consulting widely on the future regulatory arrangements for private and voluntary health care. Our aim is to establish a modern regulatory structure that will meet the need to protect the public and patients, particularly those who are vulnerable or elderly.

Helen Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but he will be aware that, in Sheffield as elsewhere, there has been a fairly rapid reduction in the number of acute medical care beds in hospitals. There was consternation recently when the Royal Hallamshire hospital proposed the closure of a further 22 acute medical beds for the elderly. Most of those patients will almost certainly go into or under private health care in the future. How will my hon. Friend reassure the public, through regulation,

that moving from health service beds to private care beds will lead to absolutely no diminution in the medical and nursing care that they receive?

Mr. Hutton: I can certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that the closure of the 22-bed rehabilitation ward for elderly people in her constituency, about which she is concerned, will not now go ahead, and I am sure that she will be relieved to hear that. She, like me, would agree that it is important that we regulate the private health care sector properly to ensure maximum protection for the public. There is a general consensus that the current regulatory system is out of date; it is unsatisfactory and not particularly independent. For example, it treats private hospitals as nursing homes and does not reflect the increased range and complexity of private sector work.
I can also confirm to my hon. Friend that the national service frameworks will apply equally to the private sector and to NHS hospitals—they are there for the private sector to use. The new arrangements and guidelines that will come from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will also be available for use, if the private sector so chooses.
Under those new arrangements, we must ensure that patients who use the private sector receive high-quality care. We are determined to do that, and we are consulting widely. We shall listen to all the views that are expressed during the consultation process.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister reintroduce tax relief on private health insurance for the elderly?

Mr. Hutton: No.

Kosovo/Cologne European Summit

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With your permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on two subjects: Kosovo and the European Council in Cologne which I attended on 3 and 4 June, accompanied by my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The conclusions of the Council are being placed in the Library of the House.
A large part of the European Council was taken up with the crisis in Kosovo. President Ahtisaari came straight from his mission to Belgrade to brief the Council. The peace plan that President Ahtisaari and the Russian special envoy, Mr. Chernomyrdin, presented to Milosevic was accepted by the Serb Parliament and the Federal Yugoslav Government on 3 June. The plan incorporated all NATO's demands. It provided for the immediate and verifiable end to violence in Kosovo; the withdrawal of all military, police and paramilitary forces according to a rapid timetable; the deployment of an effective international security presence and a civil administration—the document specified that, in any such force, the substantial participation would be that of NATO, and that there would be a unified command and control—and for the force to be authorised to establish a safe environment for the people in Kosovo and to facilitate the safe return of all displaced people and refugees.
So the document presented by President Ahtisaari embodied all the conditions set by the international community: all Serb forces come out; an international force with NATO at its core goes in; and the refugees go home in safety and peace. However, we did not—and do not—take Milosevic's assurance on trust. The Balkans are littered with his broken promises. That is why NATO has insisted all along that the bombing will not stop until a full and verifiable withdrawal of all Serb forces from Kosovo has begun.
To give us the certainty we need about Serb withdrawal, the commander of NATO's forces in Macedonia, General Sir Mike Jackson, met representatives of the Federal Yugoslav military on the border at Blace on 5 and 6 June. Those talks ended early on 7 June after the Yugoslav side repeatedly failed to accept the document put forward by NATO. Instead they tried, among other things, to insist on large numbers of Serb troops remaining. That was and is unacceptable.
However, this morning, the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues from the G8 group of countries completed their work on the text of a Security Council resolution. I can confirm to the House that agreement has now been reached in the G8 on a text that enshrines the Ahtisaari-Chernomyrdin plan and its detailed terms.
The text is strong and clear and meets our requirements. It will now go forward to the Security Council. It comes under chapter VII of the United Nations charter, which means that the resolution will be legally binding on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and it authorises, through its detailed provisions, the use of force to ensure its implementation. It requires, in particular, the withdrawal of all Serb forces from Kosovo, and authorises the deployment of our forces as part of a substantial NATO component in the international security presence,

which will have a unified chain of command. The members of the G8 that are also on the Security Council—the United States, Russia, Britain, France and Canada—have agreed that they will co-sponsor the draft.
If we need any reminder of the regime that we are dealing with, let me give the House one account, delivered by a refugee when the United Kingdom Government's war crimes co-ordinator, David Gowan, visited Albanian and Macedonian refugee camps last week.
A professional in his late 30s or early 40s said that he was one of more than 2,000 men picked up by Serb forces in early May in villages south of Pristina. They were separated from their families, beaten and transferred to the prison at Mittrovica. The prisoners were forced into cells and made to stand, shoulder to shoulder, for 24 hours without food, water or access to a lavatory. They were then beaten again, systematically, in the prison.
Yet that refugee still said that he was among the lucky ones. He had witnessed himself summary executions when he was detained at the village of Vushtria, and had heard reports of a mass execution of 103 men in the nearby village of Studime. So when the refugees say that they want to be sure that the Serb troops will go out, and that our troops will go in to guarantee their safety, it is not hard to understand why.
The next step, therefore, will be further military talks to put in place the necessary technical agreement. They are taking place today at Blace. Given the progress on a Security Council resolution, there is no excuse for the Yugoslav authorities to drag their feet again. Provided that the Serbs now, at long last, honour their undertakings and begin a verifiable withdrawal of their forces, NATO bombing can be suspended and the Security Council resolution passed, and the international force can start to be deployed in Kosovo before the end of this week.
It is time, however, that Milosevic realised that the longer he tries to draw this out, the longer and harder his forces will be hit. We have achieved this agreement only by showing total resolve and determination; we shall need to be as resolved and as determined now in implementing it. We are close to having all the elements in place, but until we are certain that Milosevic has embarked on the withdrawal of all his forces, NATO's military action will continue.
We can also now start planning in earnest for the reconstruction of the Balkans to give the peoples of the region the security and prosperity that they need to avoid future wars. The future of these front-line states, many of which I have visited in the past few weeks, should be one of peace and prosperity, not ethnic conflict. The people of a democratic Serbia can also benefit from reconstruction and integration into the mainstream of Europe, but let me be clear: that cannot happen while there is a nationalist dictator in power in Belgrade. Until Milosevic goes, Serbia cannot take its true place in the family of world nations.
Events in Kosovo overshadowed other issues at the European Council, but other important work was done too. The European Council appointed Javier Solana to the new post of Secretary-General of the Council and High Representative for the common foreign and security policy. Mr. Solana is a friend of Britain, and a highly capable operator, as we have seen during the Kosovo crisis. His new appointment will boost the effectiveness and credibility of the common foreign and security policy, and I warmly welcome it.
There was a full discussion of economic policy. The European Council unanimously reaffirmed that sustainable, non-inflationary growth and increased employment required comprehensive structural reforms at European Union and national levels. The message is clear in the broad economic guidelines, which the European Council approved, and in the new European employment pact.
As for the future development of the Union, the European Council took a number of important steps. It heard a strong statement from the President elect of the Commission about his plans for reform of that institution, and the Council pledged its full support for Mr. Prodi's approach to reform. The Council welcomed the new European anti-fraud office, whose establishment was agreed at the ECOFIN Council on 25 May, and which will permit the Union to step up the fight against fraud, corruption and mismanagement. Agreement was reached on the further development of a common European security and defence policy, building on the ideas that we outlined last year, which were warmly endorsed by NATO at its Washington summit in April.
The European Council confirmed that an intergovernmental conference would be called early next year to resolve the issues that were left open at the Amsterdam European Council, which need to be settled before enlargement. The Council also endorsed an initiative by Prime Minister Guterres of Portugal to convene next March, under the Portuguese presidency, a special meeting of the European Council, which will be entirely devoted to economic reform and employment. The initiative is very welcome, and follows the call for such an event at the Anglo-Spanish summit on 10 April. We are making real headway in promoting economic reform in Europe, which—as I have repeatedly said in this House—is essential to ensure sustained growth and the unqualified success of the single currency.
The Council rejected the notion of ending tax competition or of the harmonisation of business and income taxes. Instead, the Council decided, sensibly, that merely harmful tax competition should be avoided; and it actually advocated lower business and labour costs. Unfortunately, although we had the support of 13 of the 14 other member states, we could not reverse the duty free decision taken in 1991 by the previous Government, as they had agreed to its being reversible only if there were unanimity.
At the Council as a whole, therefore, substantial progress was made on economic reform, but, as I said at the outset, it was rightly and understandably dominated by Kosovo. Let us hope that the process begun at this Council and taken forward today at the G8 will come swiftly to a secure and just conclusion, ending the obscenity of ethnic cleansing and obtaining justice at last for the people of Kosovo.

Mr. William Hague: I concur with the Prime Minister that the outline agreement on Kosovo reached last week is very encouraging, as indeed is some of the further news that he has announced about today's agreement of the G8, and that we must now ensure, through all the difficulties that are bound to arise, that those agreements are implemented in full.
We agree with the Prime Minister that the air campaign must not stop until there is a verifiable withdrawal of Serb forces. On that, the Government have the support of the Opposition, as they do on the announcement of the additional deployment of British troops to the region.
The key test of any agreement is whether all the refugees can return in safety to their homes. That raises a number of questions. First, does the Prime Minister agree that the ground force will have to be effectively NATO led, and that the unified command structure to which he has referred will have to run throughout the whole of Kosovo, to avoid any de facto partition of Kosovo? Will the United Nations resolution achieve that?
Secondly, is the Prime Minister confident that the Kosovo Liberation Army will demilitarise as set out in the agreement? What exactly does demilitarisation mean in that context, and how will it be achieved?
Thirdly, the Rambouillet accords provided for an international meeting, three years after the agreement entered force, to determine the mechanism for a final settlement based at least partly on the will of the people. The provision was excluded from last week's outline agreement. In what way will the views of the Kosovar Albanians be reflected in the determination of the final status of Kosovo?
Both sides of the House agree that there is still an enormous amount to do. We must oversee the refugees' return, and of course we must ensure that the events in Kosovo are not repeated there or elsewhere. Will the Prime Minister elaborate on plans to bring greater stability and peace to the region in the longer term, so that people may enjoy, as he has said, peace and prosperity, instead of ethnic conflict, in the future?
Kosovo was the most pressing issue at Cologne, but many other decisions taken there were important to Britain. Why did the Prime Minister not make the case for the type of Europe that the British public want—a Europe that does less and does it better, and that cleans up its act? When will he stop saying one thing in Britain, and then caving in during negotiations?
Two years ago, the Prime Minister vetoed a proposal on European defence on the grounds that it would weaken the United States's commitment to Europe, and that it was an "ill-judged transplant operation". Why has he now supported a proposal that is effectively the same? Is it not a mistake to create a second defence alliance in Europe, which will overlap with NATO and threaten to undermine the United States commitment to NATO? What is the EU doing proposing an army when it cannot even run an audit system properly?
The Prime Minister has always claimed—he claimed it again today—that he will resist tax harmonisation. However, the communiqué says that
good progress has been made
on proposals
on the taxation of investment income";
that agreement on
proposals for a Directive on the taxation of savings
will be reached this year; that work on
a framework for the taxation of energy
will continue; and that a further report on "reinforced tax policy co-operation" is being prepared. Why did the Prime Minister agree in Cologne to the most comprehensive plan
yet for tax harmonisation? Why, when people in this country want to maintain the veto, did he agree to a communiqué that calls for the extension of qualified majority voting—in other words, a further erosion of the veto?
Finally, can the Prime Minister explain the lamentable summit shenanigans over the single currency? The Prime Minister of Luxembourg said memorably that the
moment for unfettered panic has not arrived".
Instead, the summit opted for a spot of carefully controlled panic. Statements were issued and then withdrawn. As The Times said:
European leaders …. bungled an attempt to bolster the ailing euro",
spreading
confusion through the foreign exchanges, sending the euro tumbling towards fresh record lows".
We read that, from now on, only two people in Europe will be allowed to speak about the single currency—judging from the Prime Minister's European election campaign, he is not privileged to be one of them.
Is it not time that the Government's position at such meetings reflected the views of the people of this country? Is it not time that the Government's priority was to act in the interests of Britain, rather than seeking at every opportunity to go with the flow in Europe? Does the Prime Minister not recognise that most people in this country do not want any more powers transferred from Britain to European institutions? They want their taxes decided in this House, and oppose his plans to scrap the pound. They want to be in Europe, not run by Europe.

The Prime Minister: First, I shall deal with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Kosovo. I thank him for his support. The force must have a NATO core and a unified chain of command. That is clear. There must be no question of a de facto partition of Kosovo.
On the future of the Kosovar Albanians, the Rambouillet accords are specifically mentioned in the resolution. There will have to be discussions about the right future for Kosovo, but in the meantime there will be a civil administration that is internationally guaranteed, and there will be substantial autonomy for the people of Kosovo. I cannot see them having any confidence in rule from Serbia while Milosevic remains in power. That is very clear.
In the longer term, it is essential that we begin work as soon as possible on a regeneration programme for the Balkans, because many of the front-line states—such as Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia and Albania—have given us support in circumstances of intense internal difficulty. Theirs has been a far more difficult path than that of countries such as ours. It is essential that they should be given their reward for that. We must show them that there is a different path for the future. In some of those front-line states, there are forces that would be happy for their politics to be dominated by ethnic conflict. We have to show that the values of democracy pay off. When we consider how much the international community has spent over the past 10 years on resolving conflict in the Balkans, it is at least worth thinking about how we can make some prudent investment in ensuring that we never have to go and sort out further conflicts. It is important to begin work on that as soon as possible.
On Europe, the right hon. Gentleman did not accurately set out the terms of the agreements that we have entered into. He asked why the agreement on defence is different from that proposed at Amsterdam. The reason is simple: at Amsterdam we were asked to agree to something that would have clashed with NATO. As a result of getting involved, we have ensured that Europe's common defence policy is expressed in terms completely consistent with membership of NATO.
As for qualified majority voting and the veto, we have said that we take a case-by-case view. In some circumstances, qualified majority voting might have been in Britain's interests—I mentioned the example of duty free. The difference between the Conservative party as it used to be and the Conservative party as the right hon. Gentleman has made it is shown by the fact that the biggest extension of qualified majority voting was agreed by the Conservative Government as part of the passage of the Single European Act. It was right that they did that. They did it not because they were betraying the national interest, but because it was in the interest of this country to develop a single market in Europe. That is the choice for this country. Over the past few weeks, the right hon. Gentleman has defined the modern Conservative party by its hostility to Europe.
At the very beginning of his questions, the right hon. Gentleman asked me why I did not go to the European Council and argue the points that he made in his Budapest speech a few weeks ago. In his first question, he asked me for what is effectively a renegotiation of the treaty of Rome and Britain's entry into the European Union. [Interruption.] They are nodding away; let us test them. Such a renegotiation requires the consent of the other 14 members of the European Union. Can they name one that supports that proposition?
If the right hon. Gentleman had been in my position, he would have gone to the European Council seeking a renegotiation of Britain's terms of entry into the European Union, and not a single other European country would have supported him. The Conservatives would return this country to precisely that position. We would be without influence, power or any authority in Europe. That is not all, however. They want to cancel the changeover plan for the single currency so that even if we wanted to join, we would be unable to do so, and they would cancel the defence initiative that we have undertaken, even though NATO has now endorsed it. It is also true that many Conservative candidates in the European Parliament will not even join the European Conservative parties.
That is a recipe for complete disaster for this country. There are short-term tactical reasons for going for it, but it is a big, long-term strategic mistake, and the choice for this country on Thursday is leading in Europe or leaving it.

Mr. Donald Anderson: It now looks as if Kosovo will be seen as a famous victory for international order and justice, but one thing is clear from the conflict: the reputation of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the United Kingdom has been mightily enhanced by the clear leadership that he and other Ministers have given. How does my right hon. Friend propose to reach beyond the Milosevic Government and get the message clearly to the people of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that they have no future under Milosevic and that they must have a leader


who is capable of mending fences with the west? How can he ensure that war crime investigators enter Kosovo speedily to ensure that the evidence of war crimes is not destroyed by the barbarians?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I have two things to say. First, it is important, perhaps particularly now, that we do not regard the conflict as having been won in any sense until the refugees go back and are safe. Some people asked why we were less than euphoric last Friday. I will allow myself to feel relieved when it actually happens. We have to watch Milosevic and his games and tricks every single inch of the way. He must be under no illusion whatever that if he starts them up again, our force remains there. He should realise that, and it should give him the incentive that he needs to make sure that this is concluded properly.
I am pleased that the draft resolution makes specific mention of the jurisdiction of the war crimes tribunal. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we have to reach out to democratic forces in Serbia. I know that many people in Serbia bitterly opposed the NATO campaign, even those who are also opposed to Milosevic. However, they must now understand that he has been obliged to accept terms that he could have accepted 10 weeks ago. He has devastated their country, ruined its economy and made it an outcast from the world of nations. It is a proud nation which, in many ways, has a history of which its people can be proud. If they want to regain their place in the community of nations, Milosevic's going is the best way of achieving that.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Is it not true that it is not over until it is over on the ground in Kosovo? Until that happens, we must judge President Milosevic not by his words, but by his actions. That means that we must keep up the military pressure—the only language that he understands—and the pressure from the air. Does the Prime Minister agree that that means also continuing to make those preparations that NATO has made more recently for the use of ground troops, if necessary? Despite that, the events of the last week ought to give NATO, the Government and the Prime Minister personally good cause for satisfaction as they are a vindication of the policy that they and he have followed.
Is not the last-minute wrangling and wriggling by Milosevic an attempt to evade three unshakeable principles: first, that all Serb authority must be removed from Kosovo; secondly, that there must be an international force with teeth and with NATO at its core, backed by a Security Council resolution; and thirdly, that the refugees must return in peace, live in freedom and have a future in security?
In the Balkans, the devil lies in the detail, and there are four brief questions that I wish to ask by way of clarification. First, will the Prime Minister confirm that the interim status of Kosovo will be, de facto if not de jure, as an international protectorate or trusteeship? Will he tell us who the sponsor of that will be? Will it be the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe or the European Union?
Secondly, will the Prime Minister confirm that just as Rambouillet did not exclude self-determination in the long term, nothing in the present agreement excludes it? The agreement may not include it, but it should not exclude it.
Thirdly, does the Prime Minister agree that we must not repeat the mistake made in Bosnia of putting the civil administration in too late? It should go in as early as possible.
Lastly, will the Prime Minister refer back to his own statement, in which he mentioned the experience of the refugees? They will not go back if they see Serb troops. However, small numbers of Serb troops—lightly armed, or maybe unarmed—may be on the borders. Will he reflect on what the refugees will think if they see Serb troops on the borders? Will he consider this as a proposition: that every detachment of Serb troops anywhere in Kosovo should be matched by a detachment of NATO troops who will be there to reassure the refugees and, if necessary, afford them protection?

The Prime Minister: We cannot take anything for granted until the killing stops on the ground in Kosovo. Until the Serb forces are fully withdrawn, all options remain open. The basic principles are that Milosevic's forces go out, the international force goes in and the refugees go back—that is the simple mantra by which we must be guided.
On the right hon. Gentleman's detailed questions, the interim status of Kosovo is as an international civil administration, so it is guaranteed by the entire international community in that sense. We must establish it provisionally, and then put in place the proper democratic mechanisms. Secondly, nothing is excluded in the long term. Thirdly, I agree that the civil administration should go in and get to work as soon as possible. Fourthly, it is important to remember that certain Serb troops may go back in to do certain tasks that need to be done, but they are not going back in to be the guardians of the people in Kosovo. Those envisaged as going back in under the Ahtisaari agreement are fewer in number than those envisaged at Rambouillet.

Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Prime Minister tell the House when the draft UN resolution will be published? To whom will the international force be accountable—the Security Council or NATO? Have the Russians and the Chinese agreed to support the resolution before the bombing stops? Is the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia endorsed in the resolution? Has the Kosovo Liberation Army agreed to disarm and to be decommissioned? Does the UN resolution require the removal of Milosevic?
Is it not clear that had the matter been taken to the UN with the support of Russia and China weeks or months ago, this solution could have been made possible without the destruction of Yugoslavia, the use of depleted uranium weapons, the pollution of the Danube and indeed the destabilisation of the area? History may not view a NATO that tore up the UN charter in quite the way that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues appear to.

The Prime Minister: The terms of the Security Council resolution are circulating now. I do not know what proper arrangements I should make for its being made available, but whatever I am able to do I will do. Obviously, we want the resolution to be passed as soon as possible. The Russian position on the resolution and the bombing has always been clear, but so has our position: that we must be sure of the verifiable withdrawal of Milosevic's troops before the bombing can be stopped.
On the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the current proposition is precisely what was available at Rambouillet and could have been accepted 10 weeks ago. The KLA' s agreeing to disarm was also in the Rambouillet agreement. From discussions that I have had with KLA people, I believe that they will abide by what the international community has decreed, but they will of course also want to know that the Serb troops really are out of Kosovo. That is hardly surprising.
No, the removal of Milosevic is not required. We have made it clear that that is not a war aim, but I have also made it clear—and I am sure that this will be the position of the international community—that Serbia cannot be part of international reconstruction and regeneration until he goes and there is a democratic Serbia, because otherwise, for one thing, any money that went in there would simply add to his very large personal wealth rather than going to his people.
The solution was not available weeks ago. If my right hon. Friend is saying that if only we had picked up the phone and called the Russians and the Chinese everyone would have come together and made an agreement and we would not have needed to do all this, I really must ask him to reflect on that and on the lessons of what has happened. We tried for months and months. There were 72 UN resolutions against Milosevic. He will not accept any resolution from anyone unless he knows that the alternative is force. I am afraid to say that that is obvious to most reasonable people at the conclusion of these events.
My right hon. Friend is entirely entitled to take the view that he does, but the choice was either to allow ethnic cleansing to continue unchecked or to do our best to stop it. I do not feel any sense of triumph at what we have achieved, because I know how many people have died and how many lives have been made miserable, but I honestly believe that if we had allowed ethnic cleansing to continue unchecked the consequences would have been far more devastating for people in Kosovo, for Balkan stability, for the world as a whole and the values of civilisation.

Mr. Eric Forth: In which policy areas would the Prime Minister keep the veto?

The Prime Minister: Taxation, for example, and defence, but not in—

Mr. Forth: Is that all?

The Prime Minister: Immigration is another example. There are lots of areas in which I would keep the veto, but I would not take the view of today's Conservative party—a view that it never took in government—which opposes qualified majority voting in any circumstances. That really is not sensible. We could not have got the beef ban lifted on that basis. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, however hostile his party is to Europe today, not to ignore the possibility that it might be in government once more. It should start at some point to get back to a sensible position on Europe.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton): On European Union issues, will my right hon. Friend

circulate in the Official Report a list of the matters to which the Leader of the Opposition has objected this afternoon that would be made inevitable by the Single European Act, which his party guillotined through the House of Commons?
On Kosovo, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Serbs' wrigglings, evasions and attempts—still, at this point—to get out of the agreement come after their Government and their Parliament have assented to it and there have been weeks of bombing and months of negotiation? That being so, can my right hon. Friend speculate on where we would be today if we had adopted not his resolute approach but the view of the appeasers, from whom we have heard this afternoon, that we should have appealed to the better nature of that indicted war criminal?

The Prime Minister: On Kosovo, I agree that it is obvious that Milosevic will evade his responsibilities, even now, if he thinks that our will has weakened. That is why it is important that NATO makes it clear that it stands ready to take action should he try to do so at any point.
In respect of Europe, I think that the speech that the Leader of the Opposition made in Budapest a couple of weeks ago was an important speech on behalf of the Conservative party. It revealed that the Conservatives would renegotiate the terms of entry into the European Union. I asked them earlier but they could not name one Government who agreed with that. I do not believe that they could name one Conservative party, apart from this one, that agrees with that. It would not merely be a policy of complete futility but the most extraordinarily inept way to conduct our foreign policy. It is surely sensible that at long last we understand that we are part of Europe and we should make it work in Britain's interests.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Where do matters now stand on the withholding tax?

The Prime Minister: Exactly where I said they stood in the House the week before Whitsun. We will not agree to any tax being imposed on Britain from Brussels and we will not agree to any measures that damage the City of London. What is more, we will succeed in obtaining our objective.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Prime Minister have any hard evidence that the KLA would be any more willing to surrender its arms than the IRA?

The Prime Minister: There have been statements from KLA leaders in the past few days saying that they will abide by the will of the international community. Of course, one of the reasons why we have to have a substantial international force in Kosovo is to ensure that that happens. However, given what the Kosovar Albanians have been through, it is hardly surprising if people there are resisting by force. It is necessary that we, through the international military presence, ensure that we can bring about a proper civil administration in Kosovo so that the rule of law is once again upheld and people are not terrorised on the basis of their ethnic background. In other words, those things that have characterised Milosevic's rule in Kosovo must be brought to an end.

Mr. Martin Bell (Tatton): Does the Prime Minister believe that the present British troop commitment in the


Kosovo area can be sustained in the long term without the raising of more infantry battalions and, especially, engineer regiments? Do we have an Army big enough for all that we are asking it to do?

The Prime Minister: Yes. We are sure that we can make the commitment necessary in Kosovo—we would not have made it otherwise—and at the conclusion of the strategic defence review we will be in an even better position to do so.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that not one European Union Government would support the Conservative party's proposals to renegotiate European Union treaties suggests that that policy is tantamount to a call to withdraw from the European Union? Is not that the reason why respected former Conservative Members of Parliament, such as Nicholas Scott and Sir Julian Critchley—[Laughter.]—have today written to national newspapers to say that they cannot bring themselves to vote Conservative on Thursday?

The Prime Minister: It is a measure of the new extremism in the Conservative party today that people such as Ian Gilmour, Nicholas Scott and Julian Critchley are derided when their names are mentioned. [Interruption.] I say to those Conservative Members who are shouting and bawling and parading their anti-Europeanism that one day they will regret it.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The fact that the NATO objectives during the conflict appear to be enshrined in the UN resolution is a cause of great satisfaction and justifies the cross-party support that the Prime Minister has had during this campaign. Does he expect China to support the resolution when it goes before the UN?
At the Cologne summit, was there any discussion about how funds will go into Kosovo? Does not the European Union need to do more than it has in the past and make a more cohesive effort to ensure that Kosovo can restore its economy and the fabric of its society, as well as its democracy? The responsibility of the European Union to accelerate the process of enlargement will also require increased funds. Is that fully understood? The welcome attempt by Europe to play a greater defence role within NATO requires real leadership if the public are fully to understand that such great progress in politics will not come cheaply.

The Prime Minister: First, in respect of China, I cannot speak for the Chinese Government but we hope that they will support the resolution.
Secondly, in respect of the Cologne European Union summit, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there was discussion of the fact that we need a substantial commitment to regeneration and reconstruction in the Balkans. I agree entirely with his remarks about Europe's common foreign and security policy, enlargement and defence capability. One reason for our desire to engage in the debate about a common defence policy is that it had been intended that Europe would have a common defence and security policy in any event. We faced a choice between engaging with that debate and shaping it in a way

that was fully consistent with NATO, and opting out once again. I am afraid that the latter option is the view of those on the Opposition Front Bench.
I think that opting out would be foolish, but I agree that the debate does imply changes of policy in member states. There is no question of abolishing the British Army in favour of a European army. That has always been an absurd scare. However, if Europe is to develop a proper and serious defence capability, we must examine the strategic capability of European defence and the European defence industry to see what changes are necessary. Kosovo has brought that lesson home to us in a very stark way.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Is my right hon. Friend able to tell the House who will be responsible for the civil administration in Kosovo? Will it be the United Nations? Also, what does he envisage to be the likely legal status of Kosovo? Will it be an international protectorate under the United Nations, or an independent state, or will it still be subject, however nominally, to Serb sovereignty?

The Prime Minister: As I said, the civil administration will be guaranteed by the international community, and discussions will be held about Kosovo's eventual status. However, even if the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is respected, there is no question of the Serb authorities being able to govern the lives of people in Kosovo, as the question from my right hon. Friend implied. That is precisely why all the Serb forces, police and paramilitaries must leave the region and why a proper civil administration must be established there. It is also why we want Kosovo eventually to be returned to the democratic will of its people.

Sir John Stanley: May I return to a question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister did not answer? Why has one of the key provisions in the Rambouillet accords—that after three years there should be an international meeting to determine the final status of Kosovo—been dropped from the agreement reached with Milosevic?

The Prime Minister: That is not right: the resolution specifically states that full account must be taken of the Rambouillet accords. However, part of the reason why that provision has been overtaken by events is that people will now have to discuss what Kosovo's future will be. That discussion, of course, will take full account of the wishes of the people of Kosovo. Independence for Kosovo was not part of the Rambouillet accords, although the idea of having a later conference to determine the matter was. However, under the resolution that is being passed, a discussion of Kosovo's proper status in the future will continue over the next period of time.

Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that even today when Milosevic is defeated, refugees crossing the border into Macedonia are being asked by the Serb authorities to renounce their citizenship before they are allowed to proceed? Will he reconfirm his resolve that Milosevic, as an indicted war criminal, must sooner or later stand trial before the International War


Crimes Tribunal at The Hague? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no hiding place for criminals such as Milosevic?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct that the Serbs continue to act as she says toward people who are fleeing from Kosovo. The indictment of Milosevic stands. Another indicted war criminal was picked up yesterday by British forces—those people are slowly but surely being picked up—and those not yet picked up are having to live perpetually in hiding. I agree that there must be no hiding place for indicted war criminals.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Is not the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) right to say that it is not over until it is over on the ground in Kosovo? Is not the reality that NATO forces will face years of vicious guerrilla warfare and a situation not dissimilar to that faced by the German army there between 1941 and 1945?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not believe that. It is right to say that it is not over until it is over on the ground, but the agreement that we have made and that must be implemented is that all Milosevic's forces and paramilitaries must go. I do not believe that what the hon. Gentleman has described will in fact happen. If Milosevic fails to abide by the agreement, military action will follow, and he knows it. The alternative espoused by the hon. Gentleman would have been infinitely worse, allowing ethnic cleansing to continue unimpeded so that hundreds of thousands of people would have been driven from their homes or butchered. That is not acceptable.

Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only reason for shame would have been to have taken no action alongside our allies against terrible crimes and atrocities against humanity? That would have been a stain on our country's reputation for years to come. The appeasers have been proved totally wrong, and it would do no harm if they offered some self-criticism. If Pinter is ashamed to be British, as has been reported, the remedy surely lies in his own hands.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend's general remarks. It is too early to talk about the situation being over, but if we succeed in having the UN resolution implemented, that will have happened only because we were prepared to use force. That is axiomatic.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I ask the Prime Minister about the indictment of Mr. Milosevic? Now that Mr. Milosevic has been indicted as a war criminal, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how he expects Mr. Milosevic to be brought before the tribunal? Am I right to think that it is not contemplated that NATO will effect an arrest, at least in the short term? Am I further right in thinking that the UN resolution makes no provision for an arrest?
Am I right to suppose that it is intended that the people of Serbia should depose Mr. Milosevic and then deliver him up? If that is so, is it not likely that Mr. Milosevic will cling all the more vigorously to power? What will

happen if, in order to effect a peaceful transfer of power, the people of Serbia agree to let Milosevic live in peace in Serbia? Would we seek to reverse that decision?

The Prime Minister: There are those who say that we should never have acted. There are others who say that we should have gone all the way and removed Milosevic, but it was not possible to have that as a war aim. The UN resolution makes it quite clear that the work of the International War Crimes Tribunal stands; the tribunal does the indicting, and all member states are obliged to give it whatever support and help they can. I cannot comment on how matters will proceed except to say that we shall proceed as we have on other indicted war criminals. It is far better to have reached our present position than to have done nothing at all about Milosevic.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Switching to the European Union, the Prime Minister made passing reference in his statement to enlargement. Given the obdurate refusal of a number of member states to agree to the reform of the common agricultural policy, how hopeful is my right hon. Friend that we can stick to the timetable for enlargement, or, is it not the case that we are now facing the threat of a two-class membership of the EU?

The Prime Minister: Without provoking shrieks and shouts from Opposition Members I can say that we should be able to get reform of the CAP in part due to the fact that much of it will be done by qualified majority voting; otherwise, there would have been a danger that much of the reform could simply be stalled. We would have preferred more radical agricultural reform, but as a result of the reforms that we agreed at Berlin, the British consumer will be saved about £1 billion a year. The agricultural reform process is absolutely necessary for enlargement, so we will push it as hard as we can. I hope by that to avoid what would be a significant problem for us, to which my hon. Friend rightly drew attention.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does it remain the policy of the Government and their allies that the KLA terrorist organisation must be wholly disarmed? Will the Prime Minister say how on earth he intends that that should be done? As for the right hon. Gentleman's rather unusual reference to the success of the single currency, will he make it abundantly clear—true or false—that if the Labour party is successful at the next election, there will be a referendum on a single currency shortly after the election?

The Prime Minister: We have made our position on the single currency clear time without mention. The hon. Gentleman's position is that we should never join a single currency. The position of Conservative Front-Bench Members is that they would not join for two Parliaments. Our position is that we should join a successful single currency, provided that the economic conditions are met. That is a sensible position. What is foolish is to rule out joining for ever. Even more foolish is to say, as those on Conservative Front Bench do, that they will not join for two Parliaments but will, in the meantime, cancel the changeover plan so that they could not join even if they wanted to do so. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, he is perfectly entitled to his view


that Britain should withdraw from the European Union, but I do not think that that would be in the country's interests.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Why not answer the question?

The Prime Minister: I have; I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman just does not like the answer.
On disarming the KLA, the disarmament process is set out in the United Nations resolution. Of course, the logistics are for the international force to work out.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday Kenneth Baker, a Pentagon spokesman, said that many Serbs will want to exercise their freedom of movement and leave the province when NATO moves in? Given that the bombing was meant to try to prevent ethnic cleansing, which we apparently did not, will the Prime Minister give the House the guarantee that he will do everything possible to prevent further ethnic cleansing of the Serbs in Kosovo, many of whom have been ethnically cleansed from Krajina already?

The Prime Minister: Of course I give that undertaking. The international force is there to ensure that people are allowed to live in peace whatever their ethnic background. My hon. Friend cannot dismiss the fact that the ethnic cleansing that took place in Kosovo was of Kosovar Albanians. In relation to Serbs, I think that Mr. Baker was simply indicating—incidentally, my hon Friend offered a slight misconstruction of his comments—that the Serbs are free to go or to stay as they wish, but the international presence will be there to guarantee the peace, security and safety of all ethnic groupings. I was asked about this matter on television last night. Of course, it will be difficult because of what has happened and there is no point dismissing that or thinking that it will be easy for those communities to come back and live side by side with each other again.
We undertook the action to reverse the policy of ethnic cleansing and to install a proper, objective security presence. I have no doubt that British troops will be entirely objective in their handling of both ethnic groupings.

Mr. Michael Colvin: At the summit, did the Heads of State of those countries that have joined the euro still think that it was going to work, bearing in mind that their economies are now diverging rather than converging? Was any estimate made of the sorts of cross-subsidy that will be required to maintain convergence? What will be the cost of meeting that end in terms of our contributions to the European budget?

The Prime Minister: None is the answer to the last part of that question, since the budget contributions were determined at Berlin. Before the hon. Gentleman and others dance on the euro's grave, let me point out that he and many others like him said that the euro would never happen. Whatever the fluctuations of the euro in the first few months, I think that it will require a little more time than he is prepared to give it to make an assessment. The answer to the first part of his question is that I believe that there is a very significant determination among those countries that are members of the euro to make it succeed. I think that he is a little premature in writing it off.

Mr. Clive Soley: If, as I hope, we are moving from the military to the

political phase, to rebuilding political stability in the Balkans, can the Prime Minister assure me that we will do everything possible to keep Russia locked into the process and encouraged in that way?
I should not like this occasion to pass without placing on record our appreciation of the professionalism of our armed forces. The Prime Minister's leadership has been outstanding. I hope that he receives many letters of apology from all the armchair critics who told him that his policy was doomed to failure and that all that we could do was to watch ethnic cleansing in Europe on our television sets.

The Prime Minister: Our troops have done a wonderful job and are now going to be called upon to do the most difficult part of their task: escorting the refugees back and making sure that they can live in peace. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary was out with the troops earlier today. They can be immensely proud of the role that they have played, particularly the humanitarian help that they have given. In respect of my hon. Friend's other points, the important thing now is to make sure that the peace is properly implemented and won as well.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Is there not a danger that the indictment of President Milosevic will be seen by the Serb Government as a matter of no consequence and by others as amounting to no more than a gesture unless NATO and the Government take practical steps to bring it into effect? What practical steps can he and his fellow Heads of Government take to ensure that an indicted war criminal is brought to justice?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that anyone, least of all Milosevic, regards his indictment as merely a gesture or as insignificant. Some people say that we should be prepared to invade Serbia and bring Milosevic to justice, which is the only sure way of doing that, but for the reasons that I have explained, I do not think that we should take that position.
We are obliged to give all help to the International War Crimes Tribunal. We shall judge the best way that we can do that. Slowly but surely, the main war criminals from Bosnia are being picked up there. In the most recent period, I think that 13 have been picked up. While there is a limit to what we can feasibly do in these situations, we intend to go on doing everything possible to assist the International War Crimes Tribunal, which we support.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the interests of the valiant people of Montenegro, whom we do not talk about much, be fully safeguarded in discussions over the next few days, particularly when the sides return to the famous tent in northern Macedonia to consider arrangements for the withdrawal of Serbian forces? I seek an assurance that they will not pass through Montenegrin territory because that could destabilise that part of Yugoslavia.

The Prime Minister: The people and Government of Montenegro and President Djukanovic deserve to be congratulated on their courageous stand over the past few months. We have made it very, very clear indeed that the troops are to withdraw to Serbia.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Can the Prime Minister explain why, following the Cologne summit,
those European Commissioners tainted by sleaze are still at their desks, drawing salaries and building up their pension rights?

The Prime Minister: They are going. An entirely new Commission is going in. [HON. MEMBERS: "Entirely new?"] The Commission has to be reappointed again. [Interruption.] The Commissioners are all there under contracts signed when the hon. Gentleman's Government were in power.

Audrey Wise (Preston): Will my right hon. Friend tell us what steps will be taken to deal with the pollution of the River Danube and with the other environmental consequences of the war? Will additional economic, or other, conditions be placed on Serbia before reconstruction of its extensively damaged infrastructure can take place?

The Prime Minister: I would not pay too much attention to some of the allegations that have been made about environmental damage before evaluating them properly. For example, after investigation by wholly independent people from the UN, some of the allegations made about such damage were found to be false. I do not know the answer to the question of what environmental damage there is, but I suspect that there is a good deal less than some of the people who have been supporting Serbia would accept.
What we are saying is clear and straightforward: we cannot put international money into financing the reconstruction of Serbia while Milosevic remains in power. People would not understand it if we did so. It is important to give a democratic Serbia the prospect of being able to be part of Balkan reconstruction if it embraces the values of democracy.

Mr. Tim Collins: Would the Prime Minister recommend entry to the euro at the current exchange rate?

The Prime Minister: We are not at the stage of discussing what exchange rate the pound and the euro should have, if we enter the euro. I believe that our policy is sensible. The hon. Gentleman's policy would effectively rule out the euro and cancel the changeover plan, which would mean that we could not join the euro even if we wanted to. That is not a sensible policy. If I were him—one of the younger, aspiring Members on the Conservative Back Benches—I would think about where he wants his party to be in a few years' time, rather than joining in—[Interruption.] Take it from us; we learned a long lesson in the 1980s. The way to get power is not to behave irresponsibly; the anti-Europeanism of the Conservative party is irresponsible.

Food Contamination(Belgium)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): With permission, Madam Speaker, I want to make a statement on the discovery of the presence of dioxins in certain Belgian animal feedstuffs and food products, and on the action that the Government have taken in response to safeguard human health.
The Belgian Ministry of Agriculture first received information in mid-March that severe health effects were being detected in laying chickens. The problem was traced to fat manufactured in January by the firm Verkest in Belgium and supplied for the production of animal feedstuffs. Approximately one month later, the Belgian Ministry of Agriculture was informed that high levels of dioxins had been found in feed for breeding chickens and in chicken fat analysed by the company producing the feed. After further tests for dioxins, the Belgian Government initiated, on 25 May, discussions on preventive measures with the Belgian industry. The UK Government firmly believe that the Belgian Government should have acted earlier to inform trading partners of the problem.
Dioxins are a group of closely related chemicals produced during combustion and as unwanted byproducts of some industrial chemical processes. Dioxins are not acutely toxic to humans at very low doses. Thus the likely intake of dioxins from short-term and sporadic consumption of contaminated food is expected to be insufficient to cause harm. Nevertheless, sustained exposure to dioxins over a long period is potentially damaging to humans: studies relating to industrial processes show that exposure to high levels of dioxins over a period of 20 years increases the risk of cancer.
The Government's public health advice on this incident is that, although it is clearly undesirable to consume contaminated products, there is no reason to anticipate harmful effects from the consumption of those contaminated Belgian products which may have entered the UK market. Feed contamination is believed to have occurred over a period of less than six months, and Belgian food in the affected categories represents a very small proportion of total UK consumption. None the less, the Government have acted swiftly, in close and effective co-operation with all the sectors of the food industry, to take all the steps necessary to protect UK consumers.
We first received information on Friday 28 May suggesting possible contamination of some eggs and poultry produced in Belgium. We established immediate contact with the European Commission, which was holding urgent and detailed discussions with the Belgian authorities about the extent and nature of the problem. Although at that stage the Belgian authorities suggested that exports of potentially affected product to the UK were minimal, we immediately advised the food industry to check with its suppliers that such products did not originate from the affected Belgian farms.
On Sunday 30 May I personally discussed the issue with Commissioner Fischler in the margins of an informal meeting of European Union Agriculture Ministers at Dresden. There were further extensive discussions between the Commission and the Belgian authorities, and with the member states, on 31 May to 2 June. We maintained close contact throughout with the food


industry, and specifically with a small number of companies which had sourced product in Belgium. The food industry acted quickly to withdraw potentially affected product.
On 2 June, in anticipation of a decision by the European Commission to prohibit the export from Belgium, and the sale in all member states, of poultry and eggs from the affected farms unless they could be shown to be free from contamination, the Government issued a food hazard warning on the action to be carried out by local authorities to trace all imports of eggs and poultry from Belgium. The European Commission decision was given formal effect on 3 June.
On 4 June, in anticipation of a further Commission decision extending the prohibition on export or sale to a further range of products—pork, beef and milk and milk products—I made two emergency orders under the Food Safety Act 1990 and section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 to give formal legal effect to the Commission's decisions for the full range of affected products. Parallel legislation has been made in Northern Ireland. The European Commission formally adopted its decision on pork, beef and milk and milk products on 7 June. The powers under the emergency orders made in the United Kingdom had been in effect since midnight between 4 and 5 June.
The emergency orders make full legal provision for the seizure and destruction of any products that violate the requirements. Local authority enforcement officers have been fully briefed on those powers and on the need to ensure that food businesses are in compliance. Those measures complement and complete the speedy and proportionate action already taken by Government and the food industry to protect the public. I believe those actions to have been proportionate and in line with the need to protect public health and guarantee consumer confidence.
Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that some non-EU countries, including the United States of America, Canada and Singapore, have taken steps to impose restrictions on imports of products from the EU. Although it is understandable that third countries should want to introduce restrictions on the import of Belgian products until the situation is resolved, it is disproportionate for other countries to seek to restrict imports from all the affected categories from all EU countries. There can be no basis on food safety grounds for such action, and it is deeply unfair to our domestic producers that they should, at least temporarily, lose their markets.
The Government are determined to continue to act with the food industry and local authorities to protect British consumers. Swift, proportionate action has been the Government's guiding principle since taking office, and it will continue to be so.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I am grateful to the Minister for making the statement so promptly in the House, and for making a copy of the statement available to me in good time this afternoon.
The overriding priority must be the protection of all British consumers, as the Minister says. However, the issue also affects British farmers, whose products are banned from the United States, Canada and other countries.
With regard to British consumers, we fully support the action that the Government have taken so far. Will the Minister say when the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries

and Food first knew about the problem? Does he agree that it is disgraceful that the Belgian Ministry of Agriculture was informed about it in the middle of March, but that Britain was not told of the possible contamination until 28 May? Is it true that other European Union countries, including Holland, were told days, if not weeks, before Britain? What protest has the Minister made to his colleagues about that?
Does the Minister agree that to be kept in the dark by European Union countries is a pretty poor reward for all the concessions that the Labour Government made in the recent farm policy reform talks? Is it not possible that British consumers were needlessly placed at risk by the failure of the Belgian and European authorities to inform Britain more promptly? What assurance can the Minister give that if similar future situations arise, he will be informed more quickly?
Does the Minister agree that the scare highlights the urgent and overriding need to improve the labelling of food products in Britain? Why are not British consumers told where food was grown, not just where it was processed? Will he require all labels to show, first, the country of origin of the food, and secondly, the method of production of that food? Does he agree that without that information, every customer in a British supermarket is buying blind?
Does the Minister agree that the effectiveness of the current food traceability system is faulty? At a time when British farmers are required to invest more and more to improve traceability, there seems to be evidence that others are not doing enough. Does he accept that until traceability becomes more foolproof, consumers will not have confidence in labelling?
The Minister calls for proportionate action. Why does he not apply that principle to the ban on beef on the bone? If the ban on beef on the bone is the Government's idea of proportionality, can we take at face value their claim that
there is no reason to anticipate harmful effects from consumption of … contaminated Belgian products
—especially as it seems that until 11 days ago, the right hon. Gentleman did not even know of the existence of those risks? The Minister must not use proportionality as an excuse for inaction or complacency.
Does the Minister accept that in addition to protecting British consumers, he has a duty to protect and promote British agriculture? Does he believe that he has done so in this case? Does he agree that the current scare will strengthen the reasonable demands of British farmers to block imports of food produced by methods unlawful in Britain?
Can the Minister say how the proposed Food Standards Agency would help in such situations? Does he understand the fears of many British farmers and retailers that the agency will scrutinise them more closely than their counterparts abroad? British farmers are prevented from exporting to the United States, and the Minister says that that is deeply unfair. That reaction reflects his usual sympathetic response—but what does he intend to do about it? Has he a single proposal to make today that will end that outrageous discrimination against British farmers?
Is it not time that Britain's farmers and the countryside which they look after received some support from the Government? Is it not time we had a Government who
worked for a fair deal for British farmers, not only for farmers abroad, and who recognised that a fair deal for British farmers is an essential part of achieving proper protection for British consumers?

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to intervene so early, but did you see what happened just now at the Dispatch Box?

Madam Speaker: I saw nothing happen at the Dispatch Box, but I now see what looks like a rather nice box of chocolates. As hon. Members will know, if something is brought into the Chamber to be used as an illustration, it has to be described in such a way that it can be properly reported by Hansard.

Mr. Brown: The Opposition spokesman waves a box of Belgian chocolates at me. I am not sure whether that is intended as some sort of threat or as a goodwill gesture, but in any event I commend the chocolates to him and urge him to eat them.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) asked about the Food Standards Agency. The embryonic arrangements are already in place between my Department and the Department of Health and seem to have worked very well in dealing with this issue—officials were on to it straight away and issued the necessary notices in time. More than that, they worked closely with the United Kingdom food industry, which I praise for the close co-operation that the Government have enjoyed to make sure that the precautionary measures were put in place at once to provide protection for the public. Like the hon. Gentleman, the Government have that as their first and foremost objective.
I reject the charge of complacency. I was careful in my statement to go through the timetable of events and it would be impossible for any fair-minded person examining that timetable to decide anything other than that the Government have taken swift, effective and decisive action to protect the public.
As he always does on these occasions, the hon. Gentleman raised the question of beef on the bone. On the beef on the bone ban, I am acting on the clear-cut advice of the chief medical officer. There is no room for manoeuvre given to me, and the difference is that exposure to dioxin, we understand, is harmful to human health over time—it is necessary to be exposed to large quantities over a long period—but exposure to new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is invariably fatal to the victim. That is quite a difference and the ban is in place because the chief medical officer says that it is necessary for the protection of human health. Risk is proportionate, but if the disease hits, the effect is absolute—it is fatal.
The hon. Gentleman referred to traceability and asked whether the systems that are in place are faulty. That is not the case. We were able to act as proportionately as we have and in a targeted way precisely because of the traceability arrangements that are in place in the retail sector and in those sectors that service the catering sector.
The hon. Gentleman was on to a perfectly good point when he talked about labelling. All Agriculture Ministers are under pressure on labelling schemes—labelling for

point of origin and method of production and to provide consumer information about ingredients. I am sure that we will return to that issue, but the Government are committed to providing proper information for consumers so that they can make informed choices on point of origin as well as on ingredients.
The hon. Gentleman implied that consumers have somehow been placed at risk in this country. It is the Government's view that no consumers have been placed at risk by this episode. He implied that we somehow made concessions that we should not have made in the recent renegotiation of the common agricultural policy. Far from it; I have told the House on a number of occasions that the United Kingdom's was a vanguard position designed to drive forward the agenda for reform of the CAP and I achieved more success in that than any previous United Kingdom negotiator.
I am disappointed that the Belgian authorities did not pass the information on to the Commission and other member states as soon as they had it and I believe that it is a scandal that the information was withheld. The hon. Gentleman asked when I first found out about it; the answer is 30 May, when Franz Fischler explained the situation to me in discussions about this and other matters. The Department first knew on 28 May, and officials immediately contacted the industry, particularly the sector that imports from Belgium.
We are having discussions with United States officials on the ban that the US has put in place. They are already re-examining the case for the ban, and are implying that it will not apply if European Union suppliers are able to show that their products have not been tainted with the contaminated Belgium feeds. So we are already making progress.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Canada. The Canadian ban applies not to the European Union as a whole but only to Belgium, which is a more reasoned, measured and proportionate response to the crisis.
The measures that the Government have taken, including using the reserve powers, are proportionate to the problem that we face. They provide for the protection of consumers, and do not require us to embark on the larger trade war that the hon. Gentleman seems to be urging on the Government.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether the dioxin in Belgium is anything like the dioxin that we had in Bolsover some years ago in many of the fields around the coalite plant? Does he accept that what the Tories have said today is in sharp contrast with what they said when I called for a public inquiry into the high penetrations of dioxin in the Bolsover area, which were affecting the cattle and fields? Despite the 12 attempts that I made in the House, I never got a Tory Minister to agree to a public inquiry. When we hear the Tories now, we understand what a load of hypocrisy it is.
Will my right hon. Friend make the necessary inquiries, because people in Bolsover want to know which variety of dioxin is involved and whether there is any comparison? The dioxin in Bolsover was 245T.

Mr. Brown: There is a comparison. For human health purposes, the dioxin is essentially the same. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The longstanding issue of


dioxin contamination in his constituency is still of concern. If my hon. Friend would like to come and discuss what can be done about it, I should be more than happy to see him. Yes, the problem exists and these dioxins have the same effect on human health. It is a question not of the existence but of the levels of contamination.

Mr. Paul Tyler: The Minister has been rightly critical of the Conservative-led coalition Government in Belgium, who have obviously been extremely complacent and lethargic about giving information to the Commission and to other member states. Did he raise this issue with his opposite number in the Belgium Government at the Council meeting on 30 May? Does the Council of Ministers propose to make any improvement to the role of the European Commission as the watchdog on this matter? That is clearly an extremely important role.
Secondly, will the Minister enlighten us about what precisely is happening in this country to monitor the existence of these problems? The creation of the joint food safety and standards group, which was announced during the recess, is a welcome move, but it is extraordinary that the Ministry announced at the same time that the group does not intend to meet between June and October. Will it be a working, hands-on group carefully examining this issue, or will it simply be a backstop?
Thirdly, the Minister was right to draw attention to the action of the United States Government. Does he accept that, in the forthcoming trade talks in the World Trade Organisation, if the Americans are allowed to get away with this measure without proper scientific evidence that there is any public health reason to stop the import of food from the United Kingdom and to penalise British farmers and food producers, we will have a good case for resisting the import of American food products to this country because of the scientific concerns about genetically modified food?

Mr. Brown: I am absolutely convinced that economic protectionism offers no solution to any of these problems. The British Government believe that decisions in this area should be made on a scientific basis, and that public safety measures should be proportionate to the risk and should be targeted at the problem and not spread more widely.
The joint food safety and standards group was established in September 1997 to make the administrative arrangements that preceded the setting up of the Food Standards Agency. They seem to be working well, and officials stand ready to respond to any problem that may occur in the future. Nothing in their working arrangements would prevent them from doing so effectively.
As for the powers of the Commission, I believe that it acted firmly and decisively as soon as it found out about the problem. It was Commissioner Fischler who informed me of the issue and the background. The Commission seems to have taken a tough line with the Belgian authorities, which I consider wholly right. It has responded proportionately as well as firmly, and my actions here have paralleled those of the Commission on behalf of the European Union.
The hon. Gentleman asked what I had said to the Belgian Agriculture Minister at the informal Council meeting. The Belgian Agriculture Minister did not attend that meeting, because he had resigned.

Audrey Wise: I thank my right hon. Friend for his speedy and effective action to protect British consumers. I suggest that he remind the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo)—in the context of his sniping at the Food Standards Agency—that the pre-legislative Select Committee considering the agency was, happily, able to conclude unanimously, in a helpful report, that the agency would be extremely helpful in maintaining food safety.
In the light of his answer to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), does my right hon. Friend agree that what some of us are after can be properly described not as economic protectionism in relation to the United States, but simply as a strong and passionate desire for our consumers to be afforded the full right to choose what they consume, rather than having food imposed on them by the United States?

Mr. Brown: I strongly agree with what my hon. Friend has said about choice. The only way in which to provide proper consumer choice is to ensure that consumers are given adequate information at the point at which they make their decisions, and that means clear labelling. I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for South Suffolk said about labelling, but I should feel more sympathy if the Conservatives had done more when they were in government.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Food Standards Agency. The Government's proposals were broadly welcomed, by the Scrutiny Committee among others. The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has held a number of public consultation meetings throughout the country to discuss the Government's policy on the agency, and there has been an overwhelming welcome for the principle. Where there has been disagreement, it has concentrated on the method of funding.

Mr. Peter Luff: I think there is general agreement in the House that the Minister's response has been entirely appropriate in relation to public safety, and that he has given consumers the necessary reassurance that this unfortunate incident poses no health risk to them. British farmers, however, may take a rather different view of the impact on them.
Some of what the Minister has said is confusing. Will he clarify it, and tell us exactly which countries are taking action against all European Union food exports? In his statement, he suggested that Canada was taking action, but in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) he said that it was not. Will he list the countries that are taking action, and will he demonstrate that he is taking the American threat, in particular, much more seriously than he appears to be? Is he, for instance, referring America's action to the WTO, given that the impact on British pig farmers would be particularly serious?

Mr. Brown: The action against British pig farmers is the most serious of the United States actions. If anything
could be more unfair than the totality, it is that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the pig industry is experiencing difficulties in both the European Union and the United States. The prohibition of the relatively small but important volume of exports of pig products—worth about £8 million—from entry into the United States is disproportionate, and is not warranted by the facts.
I hope that it will not be necessary to take up the issue through the WTO. In my statement I referred to three countries: the United States, Canada and Singapore. The Canadians have banned only imports from Belgium; the ban does not extend to European Union products covered by the feedstuffs statement which come from outside Belgium. The United States and Singapore, however, have banned all European Union products that are covered by the European Union statement on affected products. The Government are making known our view that we regard such action as disproportionate, and we are already achieving some success in getting the action scaled back to what it properly should be.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend will know that when contaminated food is removed from a food counter in a shop, the shopkeeper has the right to claim against his insurance policy, thereby affecting the premiums paid by all policyholders nationally. Has my right hon. Friend considered co-ordinating action by insurance companies—which, from what I have heard, must have been faced with a very large bill—with a view to bringing an action for negligence against the Belgian authorities, who were negligent in failing to reveal the information that they had on contaminated food in circulation?

Mr. Brown: I can foresee a number of civil actions arising from the incident, and there may be criminal actions as well. I have no statement to make now on those matters, which are for the civil courts and the appropriate authorities. However, my hon. Friend was quite right to say that food that may be a risk to the public has to be destroyed. That was the main thrust of the powers that we exercised between Thursday and Saturday last week.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Does the Minister accept that, when farmers are being asked to dig into their pockets to pay for traceability, the current situation only serves to show that their investment could be in a flawed traceability system, and therefore not worth their while?

Mr. Brown: I do not think that. Traceability is of enormous importance for farmers and underpins consumer confidence. Moreover, if such a situation should arise in the United Kingdom, for example, we would be able to trace it back to its real source, rather than have a broader and perhaps more alarmist series of bans, with a detrimental effect on consumer confidence. Traceability ensures that United Kingdom consumers are able to have confidence in United Kingdom produce.

Mr. Paul Flynn: While I agree with everything that the Minister has said, and congratulate him on his swift action, is it not the case that people in the United Kingdom are still suffering from the previous Government's denial of information on food safety? Is

there not still an attitude of fear in any food scare? Although it is right that we should be cautious of any additional risk from dioxins, dioxins are widespread—almost universal—in the environment. If one had a garden bonfire in which plastics were burned, dioxins would be present in fairly high concentrations. The risk from dioxins is always there.
The Minister said, and I fully accept, that his actions were proportionate. However, would it not be helpful if we stated the risk of dioxins in understandable terms, and compared that risk, even in Belgium, with that facing someone who is a smoker or a drinker? About 4,000 cancers are caused annually by alcohol. Would it not be sensible if we helped the public to understand and assess risk by stating it in numbers? If we were to do so, we would not have an entirely irrational situation in which food from the United Kingdom and many other European countries—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has gone on far too long. He must be aware that other colleagues wish to contribute.

Mr. Brown: I am extraordinarily sympathetic to what my hon. Friend has said. The Government have tried to do two things: to ensure that we protect the public in a proportionate way, and to do so without the issue causing alarm and unfounded fears.
My hon. Friend asked me about quantification—or at least explanation—of risk. Work is currently being done by my Department and by the Department of Health to examine how that might best be done. For the moment, however, we rely on the English language and on phrases such as "very small", which are insufficiently precise for the types of discussions that we are not infrequently finding that we have to have. I therefore agree with my hon. Friend that more work has to be done, so that we are able to explain risk in a measured way.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman have any estimate of the total value of the goods that have to be destroyed throughout the European Union, and in the United Kingdom in particular, as a result of what has happened? Does he recall the enthusiasm of the then Belgian Government and the Belgian Members of the European Parliament for the establishment of a European Parliament inquiry into Her Majesty's Government's handling of the BSE situation? Will he use his best endeavours to encourage the European Parliament to set up a similar inquiry into the Belgian Government's conduct of this difficult situation?

Mr. Brown: That is very tempting, but no. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Let me answer. I am content to leave the policing of the matter to the Commission, which has responded promptly, fairly and proportionately. Commissioner Fischler has made it clear that he is considering legal action on behalf of the Commission. It is appropriate that the matter should remain with him.
I do not think that the value of the goods to be destroyed in the United Kingdom is very great, but the situation is different throughout the European Union.
The sums of money involved in Belgium and to a lesser extent in France, Holland and Germany may—I repeat may—be considerable, but I have no firm estimate.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Perhaps my right hon. Friend might succumb to temptation. Many moons ago, when Madam Speaker and I were among the Members of this Parliament indirectly elected to the European Parliament, we noticed that our partner countries were somewhat more tardy in coming clean about their scandals than we British. May I press my right hon. Friend to find out by what mechanism countries can be made to be a bit more candid with one another more promptly?
Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that traceability in the retail trade is as active as animal traceability, following all his good work?
Finally—I do not expect an answer immediately—my right hon. Friend referred to studies of the industrial processes. I have great confidence in the scientific advice to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under all Governments. Will my right hon. Friend put in the Library the basis of the Government's concerns about the industrial processes, dioxins and cancer?

Mr. Brown: My understanding is that the industrial studies on dioxins are already in the public domain, but if they are held by my Department and are not in the public domain, I am happy to put them there. Our approach is one of openness. We intend to provide information promptly and we intend to hold others to their obligations. The correct mechanisms for doing that are through the European Union and the Commission in this case. The Commission has acted properly.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Does the Minister accept that in recent years UK farmers have invested considerable sums in traceability and farm assurance schemes? Other member states have not. It is essential to press for the maximum amount of labelling and information partly so that consumers have the fullest possible information, but also so that UK farmers can be properly rewarded for the investment that they have made in full traceability and farm assurance.

Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a strong supporter of the farm assured schemes. Traceability is in the interests of producers and consumers. It behoves us all, regardless of the politics of the situation, to get behind the Meat and Livestock Commission and its farm assured schemes, particularly on livestock. If people want to be certain that they are not consuming contaminated products during the current scare, they should look for the assured British label.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: There is of course an international trade in animal feedstuffs and the former Minister for Agriculture presided over the export of

contaminated feed to France. Has any Belgian contaminated feedstuff been imported into the United Kingdom, or indeed exported to any other EU country?

Mr. Brown: We understand that there have been exports to other European countries. The Belgian authorities have now confirmed that none of the contaminated feed has been exported to the United Kingdom. There have been imports of some Belgian feedstuffs, but because of their value, we believe that they could not have been contaminated. However, I am ensuring that that is thoroughly checked.

Mr. John Bercow: Further to the highly pertinent question from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), and given what the Minister described as his disappointment at the scandal, will he now tell the House whether he is satisfied, as a Minister accountable to the House, that there are sufficient penal sanctions available to apply to the Belgian Government and others who might in future be tempted to conduct themselves with such cavalier disregard for their responsibilities?

Mr. Brown: I do think that it was scandalous that the information was not provided at the appropriate time and I have no fear of saying so. I am content for the Commission to deal with that aspect of the matter. My first concern is the protection of the public in this country and we have taken robust steps to ensure their protection. As the crisis in Belgium unravels, the costs will become substantial. I would not want to forecast where it will end up, but surely the way forward for the European Union is to put right the problem of contaminated feedstuffs in Belgium and to make sure that the safeguards there are sufficiently robust to ensure that it cannot happen again.

Mr. James Gray: I was alarmed to hear the Minister say a moment or two ago that the Department knew about the crisis on 28 May, but that he heard about it during casual conversation with Commissioner Fischler on 30 May. Is it normal that the Department keeps matters of huge importance secret for two days before reacting? In that context, will he tell the House whether he has 100 per cent. confidence in the very large quantity of chicken meat and dried egg imported from Thailand? If so, how does he come to have such confidence?

Mr. Brown: Because the European Union carries out inspections of producers in Thailand. I believe that my Department was represented on the last mission that went to inspect. As for the point about when Ministers were told, the Minister of State was told on 28 May, which was a Friday. I was told on 30 May, which was a Sunday. During my meeting with Commissioner Fischler we discussed a range of issues. He informed me not that the issue was in the public domain—I knew that—but of its details. He was good enough to talk me through precisely what he perceived the problem to be and how the Commission was able to proceed. With that knowledge, our officials could make sure that we set in hand the necessary safeguards here—or at least some of them—in advance of the Commission taking action.

Points of Order

Mr. David Faber: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance, having given Madam Speaker prior notice of what I sought to raise. I have been involved in correspondence with the Secretary of State for Health for a number of months concerning the closure of a ward in my constituency. The last occasion on which I wrote to him was 23 March—11 weeks ago—since when I have had no acknowledgement and no answer to my letter, in spite of tabling written questions subsequently. Furthermore, I now understand that the Secretary of State's Parliamentary Private Secretary, in her role as secretary of the GMB group in the House, met a group of my constituents representing the GMB without informing me of that fact.
Do you share my disappointment at the lack of courtesy to me and my constituents in that the Parliamentary Private Secretary apparently went behind my back to meet my constituents to discuss a subject on which, after 11 weeks, I have still not had a reply from the Secretary of State?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The hon. Gentleman will know that these are not strictly matters for the occupant of the Chair. All Members of Parliament appreciate that there is no harm in there being more, rather than less, communication when colleagues are involved in matters in one another's constituencies. It is customary for Ministers to try to see Members of Parliament who have particular problems in their constituencies, and I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard by Ministers.

Mr. Tim Boswell: On a separate, but somewhat related, point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having tabled questions to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and to the Department of Trade and Industry on the last day before Whitsun for answer today, I was disappointed to receive a reply today saying that those questions will be responded to by Ministers "shortly". As nearly two weeks have elapsed since the questions were tabled, we must ask what Ministers have been doing in that time, and whether it is appropriate that they cannot respond promptly when they have been given proper notice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Some of us can recall occasions when replies have been either extraordinarily prompt or extraordinarily delayed—it does happen. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the occupant of the Chair cannot determine these things, but his point will have been heard by Ministers.

Animal Welfare (Prohibition of Imports)

Mr. Tony Baldry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it illegal to import into the United Kingdom any meat or food product originating from any country where animal welfare standards are not certified as being equivalent to animal welfare standards in the United Kingdom.
The purpose of the Bill—which has an added relevance, given the statement that the House has just heard—is straightforward. Over the years, at the behest of constituents and consumers, the UK has been continuously improving animal welfare standards. Sadly, such improvements have not been matched in other EU member states or in other countries generally. Meat products are increasingly being imported from countries without such high animal welfare standards, undermining British agriculture. Clearly, this is crazy.
The Bill has broad support across the House. It has the support of a number of former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Ministers, those representing rural constituencies and Members from both sides of the House who are known to take a leading interest in animal welfare issues. It is a Bill on which consumers, farmers and those concerned with animal welfare can unite.
British agriculture is suffering its worst crisis for 60 years, with falling farm incomes and rising debts. There are reports of farmers having to sell healthy calves for just 29p each—less than the price of a pint of milk. There are fears that a substantial proportion of pig farmers may be driven out of production because of their losses. The average age of farmers in the UK is estimated to be 58. One wonders what the prospects are for UK farming if that continues. Who will take over, and what will happen to our rural communities?
As Members who were in the House at the time will recall, the UK—at the behest of hundreds of constituents—raised its standards for meat production in pig farming, banning the use of stalls and tethers from 1 January this year. Elsewhere in the EU, the ban on the use of tethers is not due to come into effect until 2005, and there is no ban at present on the use of stalls.
As the ban came into effect in the UK after a seven-year phase-out, the cost to the producer amounted to a margin reduction of about £18 per sow, per year, and a reduction of 85p per pig produced per year. Pig farmers have estimated that the costs of the enhanced animal welfare standards here add a further £4.50 to the production costs of each pig—something that has not been borne elsewhere in the EU or the world.
It is not only in pig production that we have higher welfare standards. We have higher standards for veal calves in the United Kingdom, and the European Union generally has higher standards on hormones in beef and on antibiotics than elsewhere in the world. The British Pig Association estimates that the additional investment cost to the UK pig industry of the enhanced animal welfare standards has been about £220 million, and that the operating cost for the slaughter of each pig has increased by £1.50. We have extra costs, which our competitors do not have to meet, for slaughter as well as for enhanced animal welfare standards.
In evidence to the Agriculture Committee, the British Pig Association said:
In complying with the bans on sow stalls and tether systems and use of meat and bonemeal in pig feeds and by introducing effective national quality assurance schemes with due traceability, UK pigs,


and therefore their products, have achieved distinct superiority over those in other EU or third countries. The industry is entitled to believe that it should receive just recognition of these achievements and merit appropriate reward in the market place.
Sadly, that is not happening. The association went on to say:
Because multiple retailers and caterers appear not to secure financial advantage from the higher UK specification they appear to be, to varying degrees … adopting double standards: insisting on a high UK specification while accepting imports that do not meet those standards.
In other words, retailers and supermarkets are increasing their imports of pigmeat and other meat products from elsewhere that do not come up to the high UK welfare standards.
It is not only pig producers and farmers who say that. The British Veterinary Society accused retailers of ignoring welfare, traceability and food safety standards in a quest for cheaper meat and fatter profits. The BVS commented that increasing quantities of cheap pigmeat are being brought in from Europe and labelled as "packaged in Britain", without conforming to the conditions that have been enforced on British farms.
The BVS is concerned that pigmeat is derived from pigs that have been treated with medicines that cannot be used legally in the UK: for example, thallium, a preservative in vaccines. It gave many examples of pigs produced elsewhere in the European Union and in countries such as Poland not conforming to standards that would be accepted here.
The president of the BVS said:
Retailers should not then drop all principles, buy in cheap, imported products and try to deceive the public by clever labelling.
Consumers are entitled to have products on the supermarket shelf clearly labelled and UK farmers are entitled to get the benefits of the investment that they have made in full traceability and better-quality farm assurance.
That view is supported unanimously by the Agriculture Committee, whose report said:
The Government should redouble its efforts to secure an early and positive review of
the EC directive relating to stalls and tethers. It continued:
We regret the fact that the EU standards have been allowed to lag so far behind the UK's and want to see any future changes in animal welfare legislation imposed and implemented on a uniform basis throughout the EU.
The report said:
We also consider that the retailers and manufacturers should support government efforts to provide for higher standards of animal welfare by not directing their purchases to cheaper producers elsewhere and by insisting that European suppliers maintain the same standards …
The Government should also amend the procurement contracts of Ministries, Departments and other public bodies to ensure that all pigmeat is sourced to welfare standards no lower than the UK specification.
That view is supported by UK farmers. The British Pig Association, not unreasonably, said:
We believe that government could do more to ensure that their own purchasing departments (MoD etc) and departments that have influence over other public purchasing agencies"—
such as local authorities—
source product up to the UK's high standards.

The association continued:
In the case of pigmeat, government should set out guidelines and exert greater influence on securing pork, bacon and other pigmeat products that comply with the high UK standards of quality assurance, traceability, animal welfare and food safety.
Those are points that the recent Belgian scare has made only too well.
It is not only pig farmers who should be entitled to feel the benefits of investment in high welfare standards. We should also be investigating how the import of meat and meat products produced by methods illegal in the UK can be stopped for beef, poultry and eggs. The Bill is a proportionate measure and I hope that it will have the full support of every hon. Member. I also hope that it will unite consumers, farmers and those concerned about animal welfare.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 0.

Division No. 201]
[5.26 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Allan, Richard
Cummings, John


Amess, David
Curry, Rt Hon David


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dalyell, Tam


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Ashton, Joe
Davidson, Ian


Baker, Norman
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Baldry, Tony
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)


Ballard, Jackie
Dawson, Hilton


Barnes, Harry
Day, Stephen


Beard, Nigel
Donohoe, Brian H


Beggs, Roy
Drew, David


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Drown, Ms Julia


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Duncan, Alan


Bennett, Andrew F
Edwards, Huw


Benton, Joe
Evans, Nigel


Berry, Roger
Faber, David


Borrow, David
Fallon, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Fearn, Ronnie


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Brady, Graham
Flint, Caroline


Brake, Tom
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brand, Dr Peter
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gardiner, Barry


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Buck, Ms Karen
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Burnett, John
Gibb, Nick


Burns, Simon
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Gill, Christopher


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Godman, Dr Norman A


Cawsey, Ian
Green, Damian


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Greenway, John


(Chipping Barnet)
Grieve, Dominic


Chaytor, David
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clappison, James
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hammond, Philip


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hancock, Mike


Cohen, Harry
Heald, Oliver


Collins, Tim
Healey, John


Colvin, Michael
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hinchliffe, David


Cotter, Brian
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Crausby, David
Jack, Rt Hon Michael






Jenkin, Bernard
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keetch, Paul
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Randall, John


Key, Robert
Redwood, Rt Hon John


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rendel, David


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Ruffley, David


Lansley, Andrew
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Leigh, Edward
St Aubyn, Nick


Letwin, Oliver
Sarwar, Mohammad


Levitt, Tom
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lidington, David
Shipley, Ms Debra


Livingstone, Ken
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Livsey, Richard
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Angele (Basildon)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Love, Andrew
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Luff, Peter
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McDonnell, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stringer, Graham


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Stunell, Andrew


McLoughlin, Patrick
Syms, Robert


Madel, Sir David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Malins, Humfrey
Townend, John


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Trend, Michael


May, Mrs Theresa
Tyler, Paul


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Tyrie, Andrew


Mitchell, Austin
Vis, Dr Rudi


Moffatt, Laura
Waterson, Nigel



Mountford, Kali
Webb, Steve


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
White, Brian


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Whittingdale, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Oaten, Mark
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


O'Hara, Eddie
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Öpik, Lembit
Wise, Audrey


Ottaway, Richard
Wyatt, Derek


Palmer, Dr Nick
Yeo, Tim


Pendry, Tom
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Pickles, Eric
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pike, Peter L
Mr. James Gray and


Pond, Chris
Mr. Andrew Robathan.




NOES



Tellers for the Noes:


Mr. Eric Forth and


Mr. John Bercow.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Baldry, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. David Curry, Mr. David Faber, Mr. Douglas Hogg, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. David Prior, Angela Smith and Mr. Tim Yeo.

ANIMAL WELFARE (PROHIBITION OF IMPORTS)

Mr. Tony Baldry accordingly presented a Bill to make it illegal to import into the United Kingdom any meat or food product originating from any country where animal welfare standards are not certified as being equivalent to animal welfare standards in the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 June, and to be printed [Bill 113].

Orders of the Day — Pollution Prevention and Control Bill

[Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is short but important. It flows from a piece of European legislation—the integrated pollution prevention and control directive, which the United Kingdom and, to be fair, the previous Government can be rightly proud of pioneering. It is, if I may use a famous phrase, a win, win, win Bill. It will be good for the environment, for industry, for local people and for local democracy. What is more, the benefits will be reaped across the whole of Europe. Integrated pollution prevention and control is an example of the European Union at its best, improving the quality of life for all citizens and extending a level playing field on which industry may compete. It is an example of how well the EU can be made to work when there is constructive engagement from the UK.
Much in the Bill is not new. The directive's roots are firmly planted in current UK pollution control regimes, and I shall explain briefly how those work. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 established a number of pollution control regimes. In particular, it established integrated pollution control and local air pollution control. The integrated approach was first put forward by the royal commission on environmental pollution in 1976 to tackle difficult industrial problems at source, whether they affect air, water or land.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I am just starting to explain the background. I will give way, but I suggest that the hon. Lady should allow me to make a little progress.
The royal commission cited a ridiculous case in which a company had been required to use water to prevent gaseous fluoride from causing air pollution. The contaminated water ended up in sewage sludge, which was in turn spread on grazing land—the cattle developed fluorosis and a minor air pollution problem became a serious land pollution problem.
The integrated pollution control regime covers around 2,000 industrial processes in England and Wales and about 200 in Scotland. It is operated by the Environment Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. It affects mainly the power generation, oil refining, metal, mineral and waste disposal industries—in other words, in general big installations with significant potential to pollute.

Miss McIntosh: rose—

Mr. Meacher: I can see that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) is not going to allow me to proceed, so she had better make her point.

Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Is he aware that the directive now extends


to pig farms? Did the Government intend that it should do so? Did Labour Members of the European Parliament draft an amendment to extend it to pig farms under his instructions, although those farmers are suffering difficult competitive conditions?

Mr. Meacher: As I said, the integrated pollution and prevention control regime originated in Europe under the previous Government. The extension to intensive pig and poultry installations is, indeed, part of the IPPC directive. I am surprised that the hon. Lady has raised that point because the previous Conservative Government agreed the directive in Europe. We certainly take the view that that extension is perfectly sensible and proper.
I was explaining the existing IPC regime. Under the parallel system of local air pollution control, local authorities regulate about 13,000 less polluting processes for emissions to air only. The regimes require an operator to have a permit before he or she can operate a specified process. The regulator then sets conditions on the permit to require the use of the best available technology not entailing excessive costs—to use the awful acronym, BATNEEC—to prevent or minimise polluting emissions.
At their core, the regimes are based on a site-specific, case-by-case judgment about the best cost-effective pollution control for that plant. It is an approach that ensures sensitivity to local conditions and to the circumstances of the operator. It is much more effective and efficient than, say, a rigid set of emission standards.
This flexible approach can reduce the operator's costs. I shall give an example. Permit conditions for coal handling usually require that a wheel washing machine, costing around £40,000, be installed to remove coal dust. My Department decided an appeal where an operator had covered his yard in tarmac and was scrupulous about maintaining and cleaning his site. In the circumstances, the equipment was not necessary.
The IPPC directive now extends those principles throughout the European Union.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: (Greenock and Inverclyde)rose—

Mr. John Bercow: rose—

Mr. Meacher: I will first give way to my hon. Friend.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Will he confirm that the Scottish Parliament has an important role to play in relation to clause 3 of the Bill in the determination of regulations? I think that that holds true for the Welsh Assembly and, eventually, for the Northern Ireland Assembly, presumably. Will my right hon. Friend refer to the covering of offshore installations in his speech? If so, am I right to think that, despite the role of the Scottish Parliament, enforcement in respect of offshore installations and structures will be under the Department of Trade and Industry?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is correct on both points. The Bill's powers will be fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. He is right to think that it applies to offshore installations. The Bill will be used to implement Lord Donaldson's recommendations for command and control of operations

in the event of a threat of serious pollution from offshore oil and gas installations. He is right to think that that remains with the DTI.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Meacher: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will harass me until I give way, so it is better that he gets his bile out now.

Mr. Bercow: Far be it from me ever to be accused of harassment. The right hon. Gentleman should know by now that I am a thoroughly genteel and charitable soul. In view of the directive's intended replacement of BATNEEC, best available technology not entailing excessive costs, with BAT, best available techniques, will he confirm that he is satisfied that there will be sufficient consideration of the likely increase in costs to small businesses? Does he accept that that is especially important not only because of his own responsibilities, but because of the position adopted by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the reduction of regulation and costs on small businesses?

Mr. Meacher: Yes. There is a change from BATNEEC to BAT. There is no question of a change in respect of the account taken of cost effectiveness, including in relation to small businesses, which are important. The phrase "available techniques" in no way diminishes the existing regard for cost effectiveness. The directive states that
'available techniques' shall mean those developed on a scale which allows implementation in the relevant industrial sector"—
these are the crucial words—
under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into consideration the costs and advantages.
In fact, there is a greater definition of cost-effectiveness under BAT in the Bill than the Environmental Protection Act 1990 gave under BATNEEC, which remains a relatively undefined concept in United Kingdom legislation.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) asked about small businesses. Integrated pollution control is overwhelmingly concerned with large installations. IPC and the local air pollution control regime cover fewer than 20,000 installations. For example, only a very small number of the 130,000 members of the Federation of Small Businesses will be affected by the regulations.
Let us consider the effect across Europe.

Mr. Bercow: Before the Minister continues, he has not answered my question. [Interruption.] Labour Members can cavil from sedentary positions for as long as they like, but I make no apology for speaking up for the interests of small businesses in my constituency. If there is no reason for small businesses to be unduly concerned, why has their national representative organisation, the Federation of Small Businesses, expressed grave concern about the likely costs?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman abuses his position in seeking to intervene twice and make such remarks. I am perfectly prepared to answer his questions directly. I have already told him that the Federation of Small Businesses covers 130,000 small businesses, hardly any


of which will be caught under the directive. Any concern expressed involves very few firms. They are no more affected in terms of cost-effectiveness by the new regulation than by BATNEEC.
The IPPC directive extends those principles across Europe in a manner that is similar to the UK's IPC regime. All member states will now benefit from an effective and efficient system of pollution control, and industry—I repeat—will benefit from a level playing field.
The environment will also benefit. As we always say, pollution does not respect national boundaries. Indeed, the directive requires member states to consult their neighbours about installations that have a significant trans-boundary effect. One important improvement in this post-Kyoto world is the inclusion of energy efficiency among the factors to be considered by the regulator. Climate change was, of course, not one of the big environmental priorities back in 1990 when the current regimes were established. By setting conditions requiring cost-effective energy efficiency measures, the IPPC directive should cut carbon emissions by about 3 million tonnes of carbon a year by 2010; that is about one twelfth of the total needed to achieve our target. It is a no-regrets policy: while benefiting the environment, energy efficiency measures will bring financial benefits to the businesses themselves. Most of industry has welcomed that new aspect.
The IPPC will also take account of noise pollution. I believe that that is a long-neglected issue which seriously affects people's day-to-day quality of life. In addition, the new system will take account of the use of raw materials and apply a holistic approach to waste minimisation. There will be a new requirement for operators to leave a site clean and safe when they move on.

Mr. James Gray: The Minister is proud of the fact that noise pollution is included. Why is light pollution not included?

Mr. Meacher: As I have said, noise pollution is included. One could include all sorts of pollution. I am not making—dare I say it?—a partisan point, but the previous Conservative Government agreed for the UK the ingredients of the IPPC directive that now has to be transposed into our national law. I should like the directive to extend to all forms of pollution. I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. However, if he wants an answer to his question, perhaps he should ask some of those who were Ministers in the previous Conservative Government.

Mr. Simon Burns: Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. As he is aware, in clause 1 the Government try to take the legislation further than the directive signed up to by Ministers in the previous Conservative Government. Subsection (1)(b) refers to provisions
regulating, otherwise than in pursuance of that Directive, activities which are capable of causing any environmental pollution.
Why could the Government not include light?

Mr. Meacher: Under that reading of the provision, that is possible. It was not our direct intention, but I should be

happy to consider the matter in Committee. However, the issue of pollution has been substantially extended in a perfectly proper way. Most people would not consider that light pollution was in the same category as noise pollution or issues such as vibration, waste, use of raw materials and energy efficiency. Those are much more significant matters, but let us explore in Committee whether there are other matters that we agree should be included.
The directive extends integrated pollution control to more installations with a significant potential to pollute. If the hon. Member for Vale of York will attend, she will note that I am drawing attention to the point that she made. Such installations include about 1,000 landfill sites, a similar number of large intensive pig and poultry farms and about 500—perhaps almost 1,000—food and drink factories. The directive will also extend integrated control to about 10 per cent. of installations that are currently regulated only for air emissions. We believe-and I am surprised that the hon. Lady does not appear to agree—that that is a desirable extension to the existing IPC parameters.
Through the Bill, we shall improve the environmental regime offshore—the point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman). The IPPC directive applies to large combustion plant on offshore oil and gas installations. We are using the Bill to implement this year the requirements of the Oslo and Paris convention of 1992—0spar—on the use and discharge of chemicals from offshore installations. The Department of Trade and Industry, which retains responsibility for those matters, has just completed a first round of consultations on implementing those requirements efficiently and coherently, and on making other improvements to the offshore regime.
The measure is good for industry. We are implementing the directive in a manner that will benefit our industry rather than lumber it with a regulatory mess. Had we taken the easy option of imposing the directive using the powers under the European Communities Act 1972, we should have ended up with three regimes: an IPPC regime, covering the 6,000 installations that the directive specifies; an IPC regime, covering about 400 processes that we control through IPC, but which are not covered by the directive; and a local air pollution control regime, covering the remaining 11,000 or so processes. I believe that we made the right decision and, as a result, the Confederation of British Industry and other industry groups have strongly supported the Government's approach.
Some good deregulatory ideas have been thrown up for improving the way in which things are done under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. For example, we shall be able to extend the permit review period if circumstances so warrant, rather than be forced to review an operator's permit every four years—in other words, there will be more flexibility. That will minimise costs by introducing standard application procedures and standard permit conditions where an industry sector is suitably homogenous. Of course, each installation will always have the right to be assessed individually if the operator chooses. Crucially, however, IPPC retains the essential principle that costs should be imposed only where there are commensurate benefits.
When the Bill was debated in another place, some noble Lords doggedly promoted the misconception that replacing the principle of best available technology not


entailing excessive costs—BATNEEC—with the directive version, best available techniques, meant abandoning the consideration of cost when setting conditions for an operator. I repeat a point that I have already made because it is important and there has been a misunderstanding: it is a patent untruth. The directive spells out the principle of cost-effectiveness in its definition of best available techniques much more clearly than the 1990 Act did in its concept of BATNEEC.
The measure is good for local democracy and for local people. We are determined to strengthen the participation of local people in the process of pollution control in their neighbourhood. About 10 per cent. of the installations currently regulated by local authorities will need to move to integrated control—traditionally, the realm of the Environment Agency for England and Wales. However, I propose to keep local authorities responsible for the bulk of those installations in England and Wales. I intend to strengthen the partnership and dialogue between the Environment Agency and local government more generally—a matter to which I give great attention. Under the new system, local authorities will have a strong role to help them in their new responsibilities for local air quality management.
We are also boosting the involvement of local people more directly. The Environment Agency will soon consult on proposals for enhanced public consultation in respect of regulating particularly contentious installations; at the same time, we shall remove unnecessary consultation on routine changes.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend will know of the tremendous controversy about pollution from the cement industry. Will he say more about the content of the public registers that are to be given details of the integrated pollution control processes? If some of that information is to be out of bounds to the general public because it is allegedly commercially confidential, many people's faith in the new system will be badly dented.

Mr. Meacher: I strongly support my hon. Friend's point, and I want the maximum amount of information to be made available. I am well aware that commercial confidentiality can be construed in a way that is designed to prevent the public from obtaining information that is not genuinely confidential, but whose publication would be inconvenient to the company concerned. I am determined to ensure that the way in which we extend the use of the pollution inventory—which, together with the Environment Agency, I announced last month—will not enable such manipulation to take place.
Through public registers and over the internet, the inventory will give the public free access to information about pollution from all IPPC-regulated installations in the local area. However, that is only the first step: the Government are considering plans to extend the inventory further, to the landfill sites and sewage treatment works that the agency regulates and, further still, to the 13,000 or so installations regulated by local authorities.
Through the Bill, we shall increase public participation, extend openness and enable people to make informed decisions based on their having access, for the first time, to comprehensive information about what is being emitted in their midst. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the Bill and so reflect the broad

consensus of support among industry, the regulators and environmental groups. The Bill will lay the foundations for an updated pollution control regime, strengthen environmental protection and bring benefits to industry and individuals alike.
One of the beauties of the regime is its adaptable and evolving nature: it is a flexible, interactive form of regulation in which experience and good ideas can be shared and spread, and I am keen that that should happen. The very process of regulation promotes the development and improvement of technologies and techniques that bring wider and greater benefit. That process will be far more dynamic now that the whole of the European Union is part of it. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Simon Burns: As the Minister said, the Bill implements European Union directive 96/61, to which the last Conservative Government signed up in 1996. It will come as no surprise to him to learn that we stand by our commitment to the directive and that we agree with the broad principle underlying the Bill. However, although the Minister was charming, helpful and reasonable, I noted his failure to mention the massive and glaring omissions from the Bill.
The Minister knows that the Bill, which started life in another place, has had an extraordinarily rocky and chequered career since receiving a Second Reading there on 7 December last year. What causes me most concern is not the philosophy that the Bill reflects or the regimes that it would introduce, for those command widespread cross-party support—I am most concerned about its constitutionality. We have before us today a piece of primary legislation which simply gives the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers to issue regulations to implement it. Nothing of importance to do with the control of pollution is on the face of the Bill, which consists of a series of clauses giving the Secretary of State powers to impose secondary legislation to flesh out the skeleton of the primary legislation.
That causes me great concern for the simple reason that the procedures of the House do not allow us to amend secondary legislation in any way. Some statutory instruments are fortunate enough to be debated in Committee, and I accept that, thanks to the actions of Members of another place, a large proportion of the regulations to be promulgated under the Bill are to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and so will probably be debated in Committee. However, the regulations will have to be accepted, or rejected in their entirety. Anyone can do the mathematics: given their majority, if the current Government want to get a statutory instrument through a Committee, they can ensure that it gets through. The Government nominate hon. Members to sit on statutory instrument Committees and, as an ex-Whip, I fully understand what happens. Therefore, the potential lack of scrutiny causes me great concern.
Hon. Members who have followed the Bill's progress through the other place will be aware that it has not had the smoothest of passages. The House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation reported that the Bill represents
an inappropriate delegation of secondary powers",
and called for amendments to
specify with more precision the ambit of the legislation".


I welcome the concessions that their lordships extracted from the Government to improve what was initially an extremely flawed piece of legislation, but the process resembled extracting teeth from an unwilling patient.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but he has drawn the wrong conclusion. In fact, a set of regulations is a far more flexible instrument than a piece of primary legislation. It is in the interests of those who are regulated that their problems and their needs are dealt with as expeditiously as possible. We have ensured a proper degree of parliamentary control: the regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure when they are first made, and thereafter when certain important amendments are made to them. I should point out that the House of Lords Select Committee, which the hon. Gentleman quoted, believed that to be adequate.
I repeat the commitment given by my noble Friend Lord Whitty in another place that
any amendments to the regulations which affect matters which were previously included on the face of the Employment Protection Act 1990 will be put to Parliament for consideration under the affirmative procedure."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 May 1999; Vol. 600, c. 1391–92.]
I believe that that fully meets the hon. Gentleman's concerns about parliamentary control.

Mr. Burns: In response to the latter half of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention, I paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies—he would believe that, wouldn't he?
I was going to raise this point later in my speech, but now might be an opportune moment for the Minister to develop the argument and so help us to determine whether the Government's actions are satisfactory. Will he tell me, in plain simple language, the exact meaning of clause 2(7)?

Mr. Meacher: indicated dissent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We will have to treat that as a rhetorical question.

Mr. Burns: I am left with no choice but to treat it as a rhetorical question. I am rather stunned that the Minister did not respond. It is his Bill, and he should be conversant with it. I assumed that he would be able to give me a straightforward answer. Even if the right hon. Gentleman does not think so, it is an important question, given what he said in his intervention about the Government's commitment on the affirmative procedure. If the Minister does not want to respond, we will pursue the matter by other means.

Mr. Bercow: In the light of what we have just witnessed, does my hon. Friend agree that, as Baroness Thatcher once observed in a different context, the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to be entirely the master of his subject? Does my hon. Friend agree, furthermore, that if, in future, significant numbers of regulations are to be subject only to the negative procedure, not to the affirmative procedure, that will undermine the importance

of the maximum consultation period set for draft regulations in order to accommodate the needs of small businesses?

Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is right. I could not agree with him more. Proper scrutiny is crucial, as the primary legislation gives the Secretary of State powers to issue secondary legislation to define how the system will operate. It is important that we should have a clear explanation of what clause 2(7) means. If it means what I think it means, it devalues—I do not means this in a rude way—the assurances given about the use of the affirmative resolution. The Minister is entitled not to answer, but I will get to the bottom of the matter. I see that the civil servants are passing him a note, so I hope that we shall be able to clear it up.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has experience. He should know that there can be no references to anyone other than hon. Members in the House.

Mr. Burns: I am extremely sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I genuinely did not realise that. I will not repeat the error.
As drafted, the Bill gives the Secretary of State carte blanche to impose regulations. There is little to require him to bring matters to the proper attention of Parliament. With such powers, it is clearly an unacceptable procedure for the Government to use secondary legislation in such a sweeping and all-embracing manner.
The problem is not that the Secretary of State will have too much power to benefit the environment. Because of the way in which the Bill is drafted, it gives him the potential to do a great deal of damage in the name of the environment, without being exposed to the cautionary voices that a process of full and proper parliamentary scrutiny can offer.
As was done in another place, we will seek in Committee to examine carefully the powers being granted to the Secretary of State, and to ensure that his decisions are subjected to an appropriate degree of scrutiny.
It should be incumbent on the Secretary of State to demonstrate that any regulations that he makes under the Bill will address a significant problem. Any regulations made under the Bill should be measured against pre-determined criteria. A point of reference should be established in advance with which regulations would be required to comply. If they did not comply, it would be for the Government to justify them before Parliament.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, under the European Communities Act 1972, the directive could have been transposed into law without the full range of scrutiny that the Bill allows? My history is sufficiently good for me to remember that the 1972 Act was introduced by a Conservative Government. Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts the assurances given by my right hon. Friend, and admits that we will have much more detailed and effective scrutiny of the system than would have been the case if the directive had simply been implemented in its own right.

Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that when we went into Europe—the votes were taken in 1971


and 1972—it was under a Conservative Government with the support of, I think, 69 Labour Members of Parliament—

Mr. Terry Rooney: Sixty-eight.

Mr. Burns: I think that the hon. Gentleman is forgetting the deputy leader of the Labour party, who resigned his position as a result of that vote.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) may be right to say that the Government and the previous Government would have had the choice of introducing the measure under the 1972 Act or through primary legislation. I believe that the Government have taken the right decision to use primary legislation in the House, rather than implementing the system under the 1972 legislation, which would have produced three competing regimes.
My complaint is not that the Government are using primary legislation, but that the primary legislation is simply a series of clauses giving the Secretary of State unlimited powers to issue orders and regulations in the future to flesh out what I believe should be written into the Bill. I cannot think of any other legislation of this nature that has come before the House under any Government which is so much a skeleton to be fleshed out by secondary legislation.
The present Secretary of State may have benign intentions and may use the legislation wisely—I do not question that. However, it remains to be seen whether his successors can be relied on to do the same. The claim that the Government would never dream of using the powers to harm industry or agriculture may or may not be true, but, sadly, in the real world, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation commented:
We consider that any regulations which amend or repeal an Act of Parliament should be subject to affirmative procedure".
I welcome the initiatives in another place to improve the Bill so that it meets that aim. That strikes me as a common-sense way to amend the Bill at an earlier state. However, it does not contribute to good environmental practice if businesses are forced to operate under conditions of great uncertainty about the legislative framework.
One of the problems with regulation in general is that it often encourages organisations to adopt a culture of minimum compliance—they comply to the letter with regulations, but make no effort to improve their activities further. That is human nature and not an unreasonable attitude.
Organisations look to the Government to provide a definition of what constitutes responsible environmental practice. If they are faced with an ever-changing vista of laws and regulations, they will not know where they stand. What is acceptable environmental practice one day could, under the Bill, become unacceptable within weeks.
There is no obligation on the Secretary of State to engage in proper consultations, despite clause 2(4). It may be the Secretary of State's intention to widen the consultations, and I welcome the fact that in another place the Government accepted an amendment on the consultation process to include agriculture in the specified

organisations and bodies that were to be consulted. However, after a Government have gone through the process of consultation, there is nothing to oblige them to take account of the representations that they receive. That is why—[Interruption.]

Mr. Burns: The Under-Secretary rather demeans her post by making sedentary comments such as that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I pose again the question that I put to the hon. Gentleman from a sedentary position: what is the point of consulting if one does not listen to the responses of the consultees? That might have been the country's experience under the previous Administration, but it is not its experience under this Government.

Mr. Burns: I do not want to fall foul of the rules of debate, but the Minister might like to have a word with the disability groups in her constituency because, in the light of the vote before the Whitsun recess, I do not think that disability groups in this country think that the Government go through meaningful consultations and listen to their representations.
We are not calling for an end to environmental legislation. On the contrary, one of our chief criticisms of the Government is that, despite making a raft of promises to improve on the UK's already excellent record, they have yet to produce a major piece of environmental legislation. Sadly, the Bill is not proper, fully fleshed out environmental legislation, but simply a framework—a skeleton for the Secretary of State to build on through secondary legislation.
Our case is simple: important decisions should be subject to appropriate scrutiny, but we do not believe that that will happen under the Bill. For example, I invited the Minister for the Environment to intervene to discuss clause 2(7). Would he or the junior Minister be kind enough to give a simple explanation of what that provision means? We may have misread it, which is why it is important to have clarification. Could the negative resolution procedure be used in respect of draft regulations that are laid before the House? If so, that significantly undermines what the Minister has said about use of the affirmative resolution procedure.

Mr. Meacher: In the past several minutes, the hon. Gentleman has made a number of statements that simply do not stand up to scrutiny. First, he expressed doubts about the consultation. Clause 2(4) states:
Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) the Environment Agency …
(b) the Scottish Environment Protection Agency …
(c) such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government, industry, agriculture and small businesses".

That seems to me to be as extensive a pattern of consultation as one could ever ask for.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that he wants every matter to be dealt with in primary legislation; my point is that business would prefer flexibility. A set of regulations relating to the needs of industry is likely to be far more flexible than primary legislation, which, as he knows, is difficult to amend.
Thirdly, my statement on parliamentary scrutiny stands. If the hon. Gentleman wants information, clause 2(9) refers to cases that have to be approved by affirmative resolution. Otherwise, clause 2(7) provides a choice between the negative or the affirmative procedure, but none of that diminishes the point that I made, and that statement stands.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but may I press him a little further? He rightly draws attention to clause 2(9), but used the word "otherwise" in respect of clause 2(7). Will non-draft orders made under subsection (7) be subject to the negative resolution procedure, and will other orders have to be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure? That is the nub of the matter. Is there any way—are there any circumstances—in which regulations made under subsection (9) could be subject to the negative resolution procedure?

Mr. Meacher: I was correct to remain seated when first challenged because the further we proceed with what is supposed to be a Second Reading debate, the more we get into the kind of detailed and precise argument that normally takes place in Committee. I will answer the hon. Gentleman's question briefly, but he is abusing the procedures of the House by making such arguments now.
All the cases specified in clause 2(9) have to be decided by affirmative resolution. The position is somewhat different under clause 2(7), which provides that there should be a choice between either the negative or the affirmative procedure, but I have made it clear that we accept that it would be correct to use the affirmative procedure for making important changes to provisions in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can help the House. It is not an abuse for any matter to be raised during a Second Reading debate, but it is certainly customary for such debates to be confined to points of general issue and principle.

Mr. Burns: I will move on now, although that point is fundamental.

Mr. Gray: Before my hon. Friend moves on, which he says he is about to do, does he agree that the Minister and the junior Minister made great play of the consultation process that they have gone through? Is he aware of the letter from the Federation of Small Businesses, which states:
The FSB contended in the strongest possible terms that small businesses could not afford the implementation of such a directive.
Following the FSB's response to that consultation, it does seem to us that we were taken out of the loop as far as further discussions of this item were concerned and the FSB has no evidence of even an acknowledgement of its original response."?

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making part of the point that I was making and for referring to the FSB. I noted carefully what the Minister said, but, at national level, the federation has expressed deep concern about that aspect of the Bill, which he says is restricted

to a limited number of its members. The 1990 Act, which currently sets the framework for integrated pollution control, stipulates that pollution control should be achieved through best available technology not entailing excessive costs—BATNEEC, as he said. The Bill, pursuant to the directive, would substitute for that common-sense approach the concept of best available techniques.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said about cost. There is a view abroad, which is not confined to the FSB—as he said, it was raised in the other place—about whether best available techniques would be applied irrespective of cost. He gave some interesting quotes from the detailed workings of the directive about that, and I was reassured to hear them. There is little to be gained by pursuing the matter now, but we should certainly do so in Committee. Small, medium-sized and large businesses clearly need to be reassured that there will not be a problem because of the omission of the words "not entailing excessive costs". We need to be able to set people's minds at rest that the understanding is a misunderstanding at the moment, and we will raise that point later.
I shall refer briefly to two important issues—one has been raised by the Country Landowners Association and one by the National Farmers Union—that we will want to discuss further in Committee and which merit discussion in the context of this debate. The CLA is particularly concerned that
clauses 1 and 2 take the Secretary of State's powers beyond the scope of the Directive. The Directive clearly sets out in its Annex 1 the activities that should be controlled. Clause 1(1)(b) and (c) of the Bill specifically refer to activities other than those listed in the Directive.
I raised that issue in an intervention. That is fine, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said, we may consider light pollution and other issues. It would be extremely useful for us to pursue other areas.
The NFU is concerned that the original version of the Bill, which started in the other place, contained a general definition of environmental pollution that has now been extended to tie it in to pollution
which may give rise to any harm".
Clause 1(3) contains a definition of "harm". Although there is a reference to "harm" in the original directive, the definition now proposed in the Bill extends the concept to include matters such as harm to the health of "other living organisms" as well as to human beings, and includes an
offence to the senses of human beings".
On the latter point, the NFU says that

noxious smell is clearly a potential source of pollution, but the definition would appear to encompass visual offences to the senses of human beings which would be likely to be highly subjective.
The NFU raises a specific concern about the definition of pollution. Pollution of air includes air in buildings but, in some agricultural situations, the building is itself a pollution prevention control measure. For example, in a power station fuelled by chicken manure, the fuel is stored in a building under negative atmospheric pressure. Mushroom composting facilities may also use buildings to control pollution. Clearly, those facilities should not be regarded as pollution in themselves. The Minister may think, with some justification, that we should consider that


matter in Committee, but it must be examined—the NFU does not raise these issues just to pass the time of day; they are of genuine concern to its members.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: My hon. Friend will be aware of the effect that the well-meant landfill tax has had on farmers, who have this year alone identified 60,000 cases of fly dumping as a result of legislation that was meant to help to control environmental pollution. We must be careful before we put powers into the hands of Government officers or statutory bodies and introduce legislation that may have devastating, unforeseen effects.

Mr. Burns: I shall read my hon. Friend's comments carefully in Hansard tomorrow, because we may well consider this aspect in Committee.
We do not object to the basic aims behind this legislation, as there is a need for an integrated system for the control of pollution. However, I have some misgivings about the way in which the regulations will be issued, and about the fact that primary legislation is being used to give the Secretary of State so much power to make orders by secondary legislation.
Despite the sterling work in the other place to improve the Bill, it is wrong in principle to rely so exclusively on secondary legislation. We shall consider this measure carefully in Committee, as we want to build on the work that was done in the other place to improve it.

Ms Joan Walley: My warm welcome for the proposals has been slightly marred by the negative contribution of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). We have heard much about the omission of provisions on the best available technology not entailing excessive costs—or BATNEEC to those of us who have sat through many Committee stages of previous environmental pollution Bills. We have not, however, heard a great deal about emissions. The hon. Gentleman's speech was about omissions, not about emissions that pollute the air, water and land and damage the health of all living organisms.
The House must understand that this welcome legislation deals with a subject that matters to people across the country, and is not about the concerns of one or two vested interests. We are concerned about the damage, pollution and contamination caused by those vested interests, and the legacy and liabilities that we have inherited because they have not understood and invested in the importance of environmental and public health. I hope that in Committee the hon. Member for West Chelmsford will take a more positive approach, so that we can get this legislation right.
I should declare an interest, because I am a vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and the chair of the all-party environment group, which I am pleased to say contains many hon. Members from both sides of the House. I welcome the Pollution Prevention and Control Bill because, once enacted, it will give us the toughest set of pollution control measures in Europe. Unlike the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend will undertake any necessary further fine tuning. In other legislation before the House, such as the Freedom of Information Bill, and through the agenda of

competitiveness promoted by the Department of Trade and Industry, the Government will ensure that we have joined-up thinking across Departments, throughout Europe and among local authorities through consultation with local people. That is desperately needed and long overdue.
I pay tribute to the people who have worked to get us to this stage. I do not underestimate the importance of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and all the other work that has been done, but time is running out and much more needs to be done. The European directive must be on the statute book by the end of this year. It is right that we should deal with the matter as quickly as possible, especially given the full scrutiny to which it was subjected in the other place.
I have sat on Committees considering previous Bills. I am aware of the shortcomings of the current legislation from the point of view of my constituents. Yesterday, I received a document from the city of Stoke-on-Trent pollution control unit. It shows that large parts of my constituency will not meet air quality objectives even by 2005. We stand a far better chance of setting and meeting targets because of the work that my right hon. Friend the Minister is doing and will continue to do.

Mr. Gray: Is the hon. Lady saying that the good people of Stoke-on-Trent would not set such targets were it not for the Bill?

Ms Walley: I am saying that the people of Stoke-on-Trent depend on the Government to ensure that the highest standards are set, and that the resources, procedures and framework are put in place to start to deal with the legacy of the industrial revolution. In my area we have made huge advances in air quality control, but much still needs to be done, and will be done under the Government.
The Select Committee on Environmental Audit, of which I am a member, is looking forward to monitoring the real changes and benefits that the Bill will provide as a result of the implementation of the European directive.
Despite my positive welcome for the Bill, I would not like the House to think that I do not have a few words of warning. There must be proper enforcement. In the past, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has been starved of resources. Huge advances have been made, ensuring that both the Environment Agency and local authorities are adequately staffed, and I was very pleased to hear what my right hon. Friend said about the extra work that would be done with local authorities; but, without enforcement, none of what we are trying to do can become a reality. Another problem is that, as always, the devil is in the detail. In the case of provisions that are not currently in the Bill, we must place our trust in my right hon. Friend, and let it be known that we are doing so.
As I have said, I welcome the fact that local authorities will be involved, and that communities will participate and be consulted. Only this week, I received a letter from the Environment Agency telling me of the consultation that will take place throughout north Staffordshire. That is crucial: our public and environmental health agenda will succeed only if we can inform and educate the public and ensure that they are with us, and only their vigilance will enable us to make the strides that we want to make.
The legislation will need careful scrutiny in the coming months, and throughout the consultation period. We must consider who will administer the controls, and how those


people will be trained. I was pleased to learn that the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health would be involved in the training. Moreover, universities and research establishments throughout the country will be given opportunities to ensure that training initiatives are launched, and that a team of experts will work with the informed public to keep pollution control high on everyone's agenda. I am confident that, at some stage, my right hon. Friend will work with his colleagues in the Treasury to provide adequate resources through the revenue support grant.
Much will depend on the progress of the Freedom of Information Bill. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) mentioned that earlier. I cannot stress its importance too strongly. We must have information on pollution levels, and that information must be freely available to the public; otherwise, we shall not have the joined-up thinking that is so essential to the changes that we want.
I mentioned loopholes. Since the Environmental Protection Act 1990 came into effect, I have had time to develop an understanding of the impact of some of those loopholes on my constituency. I shall be interested to hear from the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), how the Bill will sit side by side with planning guidance. Given the legacy of existing land use, it is all too easy for planning permission to be given, followed by authorisation for polluting processes. If we do not have joined-up thinking at local level—in planning guidance, and among planning officers—integration will be difficult. I hope that it will be made clear in Committee that the planning process will be involved. After all, once planning permission has been given, it is too late to start thinking about the impact of polluting processes and installations. Stoke-on-Trent city council fears that
the absence of planning policy guidance on the status of air quality issues in the development control process
may lead to problems. Rather than storing up such problems for the future, we should deal with them at the outset.
Certain provisions are missing in the Bill. We must ensure that regulations, and the flexibility to which my right hon. Friend referred, will be there as and when we need them, enabling us to respond quickly to any emergencies that may arise.
I have sat through meetings of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, which has received evidence from the Environment Agency. Everyone welcomes the news that energy efficiency is to be part and parcel of integrated pollution control, but we must get it right. There are intensive industrial users of energy in my constituency, two of whom have contacted me. One is well known in the House: we daily drink tea and coffee from Dudson Duraline ware. The other company is Steelite, which manufactures wonderful table ware that is used in hotels and, indeed, here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful to hon. Members for recognising that.
Both those companies have made enormous advances in trying to reduce the amount of energy that they use. Each has spent some £150,000 per annum, and has been happy to do so. They are pleased to participate in climate

change; what they want is a level playing field. Perhaps my right hon. Friend, along with his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry, will consider the whole issue of competitiveness. Today Stoke-on-Trent launched a major report, the Ecotec report, as a result of the Government's work. I hope that the Environment Agency, and all Departments, will work with the ceramic and pottery industry to ensure that energy efficiency is considered in sufficient detail.
Contaminated land is another crucial issue. I note with interest that proposals that were to be announced in July have been delayed until November. My right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong.
I fear that there could be a lawyers' charter, and that local authorities could spend many months arguing about what is and is not harmful. Those who live in areas where there is contaminated land want, above all else, action to deal with the contamination and dereliction. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider a regime to deal with the legacies and liabilities that the past has given us.
The problems of fanners have been mentioned. The spreading of condensate is a problem in my constituency. I should like clarification—if not today, at a later stage—in regard to the installations that will be covered by the new proposals. Will rendering processes be included? In my constituency, liquid offal condensate has spread on grazing land. Recommendations have been made by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, but we are currently depending on case-by-case initiatives by local authorities rather than an holistic, integrated pollution-control approach. Given the problems that we may be storing up, I feel that we should have a proper pollution control regime.
I may have spoken for too long. I welcome the proposal, and hope that, in five or 10 years' time and in the long term, we will lay foundations to prevent the pollution that has affected so many people in the past.

Mr. James Gray: It is a great pleasure and privilege to speak in this debate, and to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). However, I did not quite understand the thrust of one of her points. If the Stoke-on-Trent local authority is so happy with the way in which it is handling pollution control—the report that she mentioned described its happiness—why is she so enthusiastic about implementing the European directive, essentially to force her local authority to do what it is already doing quite adequately?

Ms Walley: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, my point was that all local authorities need the support and framework that the Government are introducing, to ensure that the work they are doing is done with the greatest resources and best support.

Mr. Gray: I shall return to that point later in my speech. I am not sure that the Bill promises more resources to help in reducing pollution—as we all seek to do—but suspect that it implies a significant increase in the resources that will have to be supplied by private industry, farms and other parties.
I should like first to say that this is a particularly flimsy little Bill. It is also the first Bill that the Government have introduced on any aspect of the environment. The Water


Charges (Amendment) Bill may be cited as an example of environmental legislation, but it was more to do with charging than with anything else. The Government have introduced absolutely no environmental legislation—nothing on air quality, or on water quality.
Ministers had a water summit, but that did not amount to a hill of beans. They have done nothing on the countryside, other than talk briefly about the possibility of a right to roam Bill. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on the Government Back Benches—he is promoting a private Member's Bill on the right to roam—but, so far, we have heard nothing official from the Government on that Bill.
Although we have heard talk from the Government about a series of aspirations, and warm words about press releases, launches and consultations, no less an organisation than Friends of the Earth has described the Government's entire environmental policy as "Carry on Consulting". So far, that is all that we have had from this so-called green Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made great play of his green Budget, but it contained hardly anything that is the slightest bit green—with the exception of increasing petrol prices, and we know precisely where that has led the Government. The Budget was not green at all.
Petrol price increases and the Government's threatened minerals tax have nothing to do with environmental taxation, but are to do with raising extra revenue for the Treasury.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gray: I should be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, as long as he does not talk about the right to roam.

Mr. Prentice: The hon. Gentleman is talking complete tosh, and he knows it. The Budget provided for a 25 per cent. duty reduction on alternative fuels, specifically to encourage people to change to using cleaner, environmentally friendly fuels. He should now apologise.

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman has a nice line in humour, as he demonstrated the other day in his speech on the right to roam—but I shall not be led down that track.
The Government's record on green issues is pretty thin. However, they have another two or three years of this Parliament, and we look forward to seeing some very interesting legislation to address environmental issues—such as the legislation introduced by the previous Government in our 18 years in office. We should think back to Baroness Thatcher and her great speech on the environment. She invented the word "environmentalism". So far, however, this brave, environmental and green Government have produced only this flimsy piece of paper, amounting to so disappointingly little.
The Bill is particularly disappointing because, originally, it amounted to a licence for the Secretary of State to decide, in the privacy of his own room, the regulations that he wished to introduce and the industries that he wished to regulate. Originally, it was a huge Henry VIII Bill—as was noted in Committee in the other place, when it forced the Government to change the Bill's title and much of its detail.
Some of my noble Friends in the other place—such as Baroness Byford, Lord Dixon-Smith, Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Pearson of Rannoch—subjected the original Bill to a terrible attack, forcing the Government to change substantial parts of it. Nevertheless, in many respects, the Bill that we are now debating is still a bad one. I shall explain later, and in detail, why the Bill is a bad one. Essentially, however, it is bad in principle.
The previous Government passed the Environmental Protection Act 1990, after which the European directive on the subject was issued. This Bill's only real purpose is to implement that directive. As I asked in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke–on—Trent, North, why should this sovereign Parliament need a European directive to demonstrate what we have to do with our own industries, farmers and small businesses? The Minister for the Environment did not listen to small businesses at all in consultations on the Bill.
Why do we need a European directive to tell our small business people what they should do about pollution? Surely this place is sufficiently worthy, intelligent and hard working to tell our small business people and others what they must do to deal with pollution. It is bad in principle to introduce fairly damaging legislation merely to satisfy a European directive.

Mr. David Drew: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's comments. In a previous life, he was an adviser to a previous Secretary of State for the Environment. Is he now seriously saying that, in that capacity, he had nothing to do with the European directive?

Mr. Gray: I happily give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I came into the then Department of the Environment some time after the directive was agreed, and some time after my boss—my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)—became Secretary of State for the Environment. The directive was before his time. Nevertheless, he used to describe me as the grit in his oyster, as his views and mine on matters such as European directives were never in accord. Therefore, even if it had been agreed in his time, I am confident that I should have advised against its promulgation. However, that is delving into ancient history.
The general principle that I have described is a good one: we do not need a European directive to control how we deal with United Kingdom environmental pollution. We should also consider how the United Kingdom handles European directives. True Europeans—continental Europeans—do not deal with European directives as we do. When the French receive a directive, they shrug their shoulders, in a Gallic type of way, and put it on a shelf. The Germans know a great deal more about the matter than is described in the directive, and they have already implemented its contents. Therefore, there is no need for the Germans to worry about it. In the United Kingdom, however, my erstwhile colleagues—civil servants at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—receive a European directive in the post, look at it, and create a gigantic library of regulations to attempt to implement it. They gold plate European directives most extraordinarily.
We have already heard in the debate details of how annexe 1 of the directive specifies the industries that should be regulated, and of how the Bill would quite significantly increase the number of industries that should be regulated.
I think of the water industry, with which I was very much involved when I worked in the Department of the Environment. Very properly, the urban waste water treatment directive provided that sewage outfalls should be controlled, and the previous Government went to great lengths to reduce sewage pollution in sea. Now, however, certain people—such as no less a body than Surfers Against Sewage—are making representations to the Government that ultraviolet screening of long sea sewage outfalls should be operated the whole year round. Doing so might seem sensible enough, until one realises that people surf only between about April and about October, and that ultraviolet screening is extraordinarily expensive. Operating year-round screening would be equivalent to gold plating the directive. I suspect that some of the proposals on implementing that directive are no more than gold plating.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: Has the hon. Gentleman ever heard of wetsuits?

Mr. Gray: I have indeed heard of wetsuits, and, when I go surfing in Cornwall, I wear one. However, wetsuits are not a factor in the comments of Surfers Against Sewage on ultraviolet treatment. Its members are saying that, despite wetsuits or any other personal protection, they want ultraviolet protection the whole year round, so that when they go surfing on Christmas day they will be protected. I think that the hon. Gentleman rather missed the point.
There are three ways of treating European directives. First, we could do what many of my colleagues in Government often did, who said, "We must be in the forefront in implementing the directives and show Europe how to do it. We're not going to gold plate them. We're going to deal with every issue and sort them all out. Look at us—aren't we great?"
The second way to treat European directives is how the French and Italians do it, by saying, "Who cares anyway? We'll just ignore them, and hope that no one will notice." Surely the sensible way is to be in the middle of the pack, conforming to most of the directive in good time and avoiding being taken to the European Court for failing to implement it, but not rushing forward. The Minister might like to think about clause 1, which takes the Bill significantly further than annexe 1 of the directive. I am concerned about the gold plating tendency of my worthy and distinguished former colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
My second concern is the effect that the Bill would have on businesses. We have already heard a great deal about the difference between BATNEEC and BAT. The Government have gone to some lengths here and in another place to say that there is not much difference. If that is the case, why have all the industries gone to such gigantic lengths to say that they are very concerned about the difference? They say that the measure is gold plating and will cost them a lot of money. They say that despite their best efforts the Government have not listened to a word that they have said.
In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), 1 quoted from a letter from the Federation of Small Businesses, which is very concerned that the Bill will put people out of business in my constituency. Its letter to the Government setting that out was not even acknowledged. The federation was out of the loop. The Minister said earlier that it was happy and that there was nothing in the Bill to cause small businesses difficulties. That is demonstrably not the case. I have extensive quotations from the Federation of Small Businesses saying the opposite. Small businesses are rightly worried.
The key to environmental legislation must be cost-benefit analysis. Many measures could be beneficial. We have heard from one hon. Member who wants ultraviolet screening on Christmas day on long sea sewage outfalls. We have to balance the benefits against the cost of implementing environmental legislation. The Bill fails to strike a sensible balance between cost and benefit.
Leaving that general concern about business to one side, I am particularly concerned about some specific industries. The Minister boldly says that he believes that the Bill will affect 6,000 installations rather than the 2,000 that are currently affected. That means that 4,000 installations will be brought under the regime. That rings large alarm bells. Many of those 4,000 businesses, farms and other installations across the country are no doubt in my constituency, although I do not know about them. They will suddenly be subject to regulation. We do not know what kind of regulation, because the Bill leaves it to the Secretary of State to decide that in the privacy of his office.
I am worried because I do not know the effects on some of the installations. We are told that 1,000 landfill sites and 1,000 pig and poultry farms will be covered. The Minister talked about very large pig and poultry farms, but a farm of 40,000 hens is a small to medium-sized farm. The Bill will cover all poultry farms except the very smallest. Any worthwhile poultry farm will be covered by the regulations. The Bill will also cover 500 food and drink factories that are not currently regulated. The other businesses affected are small businesses that are currently regulated by local authorities.
The Minister must tell us the environmental benefits of bringing those 4,000 businesses into regulation and the cost to them. He must not waft the issue away, telling us not to worry because this is a fearfully good environmental Bill and small businesses and farmers will be all right. We want to know the detailed benefits of the Bill and the costs to the industries that I have mentioned.
The landfill tax is increasing thanks to recent Budgets to discourage the use of landfill sites. That is fine, but if the Bill brings extra costs to bear on landfill sites there could be an increase in fly tipping. There have been 6,000 to 8,000 reported incidents of fly tipping across the nation.

Mrs. Gorman: Sixty thousand to 80,000.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting me. Those incidents are largely a result of the landfill tax. How much extra fly tipping will the Bill cause?
We would all like our rubbish to be incinerated rather than put in landfill sites. Will the Bill affect rubbish incineration sites? Will it affect waste-to-energy sites?
The Minister might like to consult his officials before he responds so that he can tell us whether they are included. If they are, he might like to tell us whether the regulations will make it easier or more difficult to set up a waste-to-electricity site.
In my rural constituency I am particularly concerned about farmers. I have several poultry farmers and a large number of pig farmers. Thanks to the Government's two years in office, my pig farmers are nearly all going out of business. Anyone who attended the Royal Bath and West show last week will know that—the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was concerned by what he saw of the pig farmers. We have told our pig farmers to get rid of their stalls and tethers, their prices have gone through the floor, and they are worse off than European pig farmers and going bankrupt—and now we are going to regulate what they do with their pig dung and invite the local authority and people near the farm to tell us what they think about it. Those of us who are green and organic would much rather chicken and pig dung was used on the fields instead of fertilisers—although the Minister for the Environment may differ from that view—but it smells and attracts flies. If we invite every villager in the surrounding area to complain and use the legislation to stop the farmer from using dung, the cost of disposing of it and growing the produce in the fields where it is currently used will increase. The Bill will have a significant effect on pig and chicken farmers in my constituency and elsewhere. I do not believe that the Government have taken proper account of the damage that the Bill will do to them.
Small businesses have been mentioned a great deal during the debate. They concern us all, particularly the Conservatives, because we are the party of small businesses. The Minister has shown that the Government are not excessively concerned. Small businesses may be bad polluters individually, but the percentage of pollution that they produce collectively is relatively small. The Bill may bear down particularly heavily on small individual polluters, even though 70 per cent. of all pollution is produced by the chemical industry. The Minister might like to consult more fully with the Federation of Small Businesses on its concerns about the Bill. He might care to respond to the federation's submission before the Bill goes to Committee. In Committee he might like to find ways of addressing its reasonable worries.
I have concerns about the format of the Bill and its practical effects. It is easy to talk about it as a tidying-up measure. Throughout the debates in the other place, Lord Whitty consistently said that the Bill was a small administrative matter and the Government were tidying up so that we have one pollution control system instead of three. He told us not to worry, because it was just a small matter of implementing a European directive that the Government would get through on a one-line Whip on a quiet evening. Some 6,000 extra businesses will be covered. It is important to look carefully at what the Bill will mean to them.
This is a baby and bath water Bill. We want to know which babies will be thrown out with the bath water. Which babies are in the bath? Is the bath gold plated? The Minister is not listening, or he might appreciate my reference. We want to know what will happen. Which businesses will be terminally affected? Which pig farmers or chicken farmers—already on their uppers thanks to the Government—will go out of business as a result of the

Bill? Above all, what will the Minister do to protect small businesses, to whose representations the Government have been notably reluctant to listen?

Mr. Nick Ainger: I congratulate the Government on introducing the legislation. Throughout the 1990s, I have been involved in dealing with the effects of an application by National Power to burn orimulsion at Pembroke power station in my constituency. In an unconnected incident, the Sea Empress ran aground at the mouth of Milford Haven resulting in what is still the sixth worst oil pollution incident in the world. I therefore have some knowledge of pollution and integrated pollution control.
What followed the application by National Power was a model of how not to regulate the potential for pollution. In 1991, the company made an application to burn orimulsion at its then oil-burning power station. It finally withdrew the application, which had gone through various processes, in the summer of 1997, although no decision had been reached. The process probably cost the company in the region of £2 million to £3 million. The three local authorities involved also put in a great deal of expenditure and staff time.
The matter was originally dealt with by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, which then became the Environment Agency. Obviously, massive amounts of staff time were devoted to the application. The Countryside Council for Wales was also heavily involved in respect of environmental impact, both marine and land. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was also involved in respect of potential marine pollution resulting from the importation of orimulsion, and the Welsh Office was involved in planning and environmental protection matters.
Despite the involvement of all those agencies, no decision was reached. When, some six years after the original application, the Department of Trade and Industry decided—rightly, in my view—that there should be a public inquiry, the company decided to withdraw the application.
A holistic approach and a truly integrated system of pollution prevention and control are clearly needed. Although I take on board some of the comments made by Opposition Members about the Environmental Protection Act 1990, that measure did not deliver in respect of a large, complex and expensive project—it would have cost £500 million to convert Pembroke power station. When the directive is incorporated in British law, it will make the system more effective and efficient and I am sure business will welcome that.
I turn to the comments of Opposition Members, particularly in relation to competition. Again, I refer to National Power and its plan to burn orimulsion. What really annoyed National Power was the fact that PowerGen, its prime competitor in power generation in the United Kingdom, was burning orimulsion without any of the pollution controls that the Environmental Protection Agency would have imposed on National Power. The same applies to other industries that have not reached the same point in the integration of pollution control, particularly in continental Europe.
About a year ago I saw the pollution that was emitted by the refineries in Algeciras, in southern Spain. I do not know whether it was part of the Spanish Government's attitude to Gibraltar, but whenever I looked over at Algeciras, the pollution was blowing straight over Gibraltar. The refineries at Milford Haven in my constituency, where top-quality management insists on the highest environmental standards, are competing with refineries in Algeciras and elsewhere around the Mediterranean where there seem to be many old and rather dirty oil refineries which clearly have not made the same investments as British refineries. It is unfair competition.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) should realise that because the directive applies throughout Europe, it will improve the competitive position of British companies. I accept his point about Germany, but because we have made the necessary investment, we are very close to the German position in a number of respects. It is unfair that British companies, particularly in the oil refining and power generation industries, have to compete with refineries and power stations in continental Europe which have not implemented top-quality pollution controls.

Mr. Gray: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the offshore oil industry. What does he think about the pig industry, and the fact that stalls and tethers have been banned in the United Kingdom, but not in Europe? The Bill will drive our pig farmers out of business.

Mr. Ainger: No pig farmer has ever told me that the problems in the pig industry—which are cyclical, not structural—resulted from the banning of stall and tether. Like the hon. Gentleman, I represent a rural constituency where there are pig farmers, and none of them has made that point. There is a cyclical problem, which in many cases relates to overproduction, which in turn is creating difficulties for pig farmers. The animal welfare issues are not to blame.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware, even though the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) is not, that in respect of pigs and chickens there is a requirement to apply the integrated pollution prevention control directive that was brought into being by the former boss of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that there are no proposals whatever to adopt lower thresholds than those in that directive.

Mr. Ainger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her clarification. I am sure that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire now accepts that.
I now move on to another part of the Bill and welcome the fact that we are to have truly integrated pollution prevention controls. The offshore installations around our coast were highlighted in Lord Donaldson's reports. The most recent one, with which I helped, covered major pollution incidents at sea. I welcome the fact that we shall now have proper controls covering pollution from offshore installations.
I am sure that my hon. Friends representing constituencies on the north Wales coast and the Wirral will join me in welcoming the measure. Over the past 18 months, their constituencies have suffered a series of pollution incidents involving the Broken Hill Petroleum Company, the old Hamilton Brothers Company, at its Liverpool bay installations. None of them were major incidents involving hundreds of tonnes, but they were significant enough to appear regularly in the media. Environmental pollution has a negative impact on the tourist areas along the coastal strip of north Wales, such as Colwyn Bay, Llandudno and Rhyl. It is vital that we have a regulatory framework to address the offshore industry, as offshore installations have not been covered by the 1990 legislation in the same way as onshore installations.
I welcome the fact that energy efficiency will become part of the holistic approach to pollution control. It is to the great credit of the Government that they are willing to take difficult decisions that many constituents do not like in relation to fuel duty and so on. However, that is part of the green agenda that we are implementing.
There is a need to ensure adequate monitoring of atmospheric and marine pollution. The technology is available to industry, which must get involved in research and development as well as marketing and producing. The major polluters of the atmospheric and marine environments need to be able to show the regulators that their permitted emissions are not being exceeded, either overall or on a peak basis.
This is an opportunity for small businesses—to which Tory Members keep referring—to get into the environmental monitoring industry, which is growing and is worth billions of pounds. I hope that the Bill will encourage more British companies to research and develop environmental monitoring equipment, and I welcome the Government's intention in proposing the Bill.

Mr. Tom Brake: I start by declaring an interest, in that I am a trustee of the Centre for Environmental Initiatives—an organisation in my constituency which does much work on environmental issues, both locally and nationally.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill because we must strengthen pollution prevention and control in this country. However, the Bill is not perfect and further work will be needed on definitions, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). Should the definition of "harm" extend to offending the senses of human beings? That is worth revisiting. There may be legitimate concerns also about releasing the names and addresses of producers—again, something to which we may want to return. In Committee, we will table amendments to strengthen the Bill and to address some of its weaknesses. However, the Bill represents progress, and we shall give broad support to its principles.
We want to flesh out the detail of any proposed pollution inventories. The Labour party promised action in this area before the general election. The Minister for the Environment promised:
Local Authorities will be responsible for a comprehensive Local Pollution Inventory detailing emissions of pollutants into air, water and ground in their area.


That promise has been repeated, most recently at the 1998 Labour party conference—still, I believe, the sovereign body of the Labour party—where the Minister said that he wanted
a toxic releases inventory of all noxious discharges to land, air and water in their neighbourhood to be readily available for public inspection by local people.
The principle of pollution inventories is supported by the Environment Agency, which recently stated that
a truly comprehensive pollution inventory would contain information on all sources of pollution in a local area",
particularly associated with landfill sites and sewage works. The agency believes, as do the Liberal Democrats, that an amendment to the Bill would be the most effective way of achieving that.
There is broad support for the concept of pollution inventories among industrialists. The business and environment director of the UK Chemical Industries Association said that if the Government proposed a comprehensive inventory, the association would give that its wholehearted support. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) has tabled an early-day motion calling for pollution inventories, which has been supported by no fewer than 194 Members of Parliament. I hope that others will support it in the days and weeks to come.
My hon. Friend's Access to Environmental Information Bill is what is needed. The crucial difference is that people have a right to know about dangerous pollutants emitted from sources in their area. That is where the protection of the environment and freedom of information combine—something to which the Liberal Democrats are committed. My hon. Friend's Bill, supported by Members from both sides of the House, would deliver that.
It is appropriate that we are discussing the Bill today, as we prepare to go to the polls for elections to the European Parliament. The window of opportunity for the Bill came with the integrated pollution prevention and control directive. That is a good thing that has come out of Europe—I hope that all hon. Members can agree on that. That is why my party has taken a positive line on Europe—a firm but fair line. It is not possible for this country to have a pristine environment if a reactor in France fails, if Germany pollutes the air or if everybody else destroys the oceans. As others have pointed out, environmental pollution does not respect national boundaries.
Anybody arguing for a weaker Europe, or for this country to go it alone, must realise that that has knock-on effects on issues such as the environment. Only with a strong Europe—working on environmental issues and taking tough decisions on the world stage—can we hope to see action on the scale that is so desperately needed to ensure that our environment is safe. A weaker Europe equals weaker environmental protection for all. Perhaps the Tories' campaign slogan should be, "Not in Europe, but polluted by Europe". The Liberal Democrats are proud, as environmentalists, to be strong supporters of a more open, more democratic, reformed and more sustainable EU.
The Liberal Democrats often criticise the Secretary of State for taking powers that we believe to be unnecessary. However, in this case, I hope that Ministers will assure the House that it is the Secretary of State's intention to use the powers available to him—selectively, of course,

as many Members have raised concerns about the far-reaching nature of some of the powers. I would like an indication that the Secretary of State would be willing to use the powers where necessary—a point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley).
We do not want to spend hours debating a Bill upon which, in the end, the Secretary of State has no intention of acting. I do not believe that that is the intention, but I hope that Ministers will confirm that the Government will use such powers, which powers they intend using and whether there is an outline timetable for when that will be done.
The Access to Environmental Information Bill is a way forward which, eventually, I believe will be agreed in this House. However, the Liberal Democrats are realists and, in the spirit of constructive opposition which characterises my party's positive and sensible approach to politics, I have another proposal.
I wrote recently to the Minister for the Environment to ask him to consider amendments which many hon. Members will have seen, as they were circulated by Friends of the Earth. I have not had a response, and I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary would respond on his behalf when she winds up. The amendments are non-controversial and I hope that the Government will support them—or table them themselves—in Committee.
The amendments would enable better information to be provided to the public on environmental pollution. That would not require the Secretary of State to take action, but it would give him the ability to do so in line with the enabling nature of the Bill. He will be able to collect pollution data from a variety of sources—landfill sites, factories, sewage treatment works and so on. That information could be made readily available to local people. That is what we want, what I believe Ministers want and what many other groups and organisations want.
An effective consensus has been reached in favour of such a measure, and I hope that the Minister will not disappoint us in her reply. In the meantime, we support the Bill as a first step in the right direction.

Mr. Patrick Hall: I, too, believe that it is timely that we should debate this matter today, only two days before the European parliamentary elections. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, the Bill stems from the need to implement next year the European directive on integrated pollution prevention and control. That is another excellent example of the benefits of being in Europe and of being positive about it.
Contrary to the assertions of foreign imposition and domination made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), the directive is very much influenced by the United Kingdom's system of integrated pollution control, which is site specific and based on permits, in contrast with the more general countrywide and inflexible controls favoured by many other member states. The European Council has listened to our arguments.
I understand that a significant proportion of the staff at the European Union's integrated pollution prevention and control bureau, which is preparing guidance on these matters for all member states, have been seconded from the Environment Agency for England and Wales. That is an example of positive international co-operation and


shows how we can be constructive and helpful about Europe, and thus exert significant influence on measures that will benefit not only us, but all of Europe. In an election week, it must be said that that is in sharp contrast to the essentially anti-European position of too many Conservative Members.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) that, although the constitutional and procedural matters raised in great detail in another place are important, by concentrating only on those, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) gave the impression of a somewhat negative approach to the Bill. He could have said a little more about the positive aspects of pollution control, raising standards for people in this country and throughout the European Union.

Mr. Burns: The responsibility of the official Opposition is to oppose those parts of legislation that we feel are not particularly good or need improving. I made it plain that, in principle, I support the aims of the Bill, because it is based on a directive to which the Conservative Government signed up, but our role is to find and draw attention to areas where we believe it is not ideal.

Mr. Hall: I look forward to positive and constructive interventions from Conservative Members in Committee.
It is widely understood that pollution does not respect international boundaries. It is a global issue and we clearly have to co-operate. The directive is an example of working together for common goals and the common good. It is also an example, in this election week, of the effective stewardship of the British people's interests delivered by the Government's leadership and competence in Europe. We are being listened to in Europe because we are positive about our engagement in Europe.
The directive, usefully, goes further than the UK system of integrated pollution control by requiring energy efficiency and noise to be considered as well as emissions. That is a welcome and important step forward. That good practice is already followed by many organisations and firms in this country, but it is important to set higher minimum standards. The Bill is extremely positive in that respect.

Mr. Gray: I was not being in the slightest bit anti-European. I was merely asking why we need a directive to implement such measures. What are the trans-boundary implications of noise pollution?

Mr. Hall: It depends on how loud the noise is. I hope that, if he serves on the Bill in Committee, the hon. Gentleman will make quiet but constructive noises that will be welcomed by our friends in Europe.
The directive and the Bill lay emphasis on installations, as opposed to the British system, which emphasises processes. That will be helpful. The scope of integrated pollution prevention will be widened to include landfill sites, which will be very welcome to my constituents in Bedford and Kempston, given their proximity to the brick clay pits, which are some of the biggest holes in the ground in this country. Some are still active, but the

exhausted pits present a potential resource, including that used by the existing huge landfill operation, which deals with domestic and industrial waste, including some extremely toxic materials.
Large food and drink factories and intensive pig and poultry farms will be regulated, as will sewage works, which are frequently a source of local environmental concern. The Bill presents a common system, unifying the European IPPC directive, the UK system and the local air pollution system operated by local council environmental health departments. Many will welcome the idea of a unified, integrated system.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister expand a little further—in Committee, if not tonight—on those three strands? How can a common system work effectively and seamlessly, given that it will be operated nationally by the Environment Agency and locally by hundreds of authorities covering thousands of installations? There are resourcing and communication issues, and we need to ensure consistency between what is done in accordance with the same legislation by different organisations at different levels. That is a crucial question.
The Bill provides an excellent opportunity to deliver something that is crucial to an environmentally sustainable future: the empowerment of all citizens by making it possible easily to obtain clear information about pollution affecting them where they live. That should include information on health outcomes and hazards.
Just as democracy cannot be left only to politicians, so must care for the environment and respect for the planet not be left only to the experts. Of course we need experts' advice and the public must be kept informed, but to achieve really high environmental standards and to reduce or even eliminate pollution wherever possible, the concern and participation of the public are essential. Children are very keen on these matters and by being able to get information adults, too, will be able to contribute more effectively.
I warmly welcome the Government's commitment to comprehensive pollution inventories. Two welcome initiatives have already been introduced this year: the factory watch initiative from Friends of the Earth and the pollution inventory launched by the Environment Agency last month. Both those initiatives will enable the public to get information through the internet about their local environment, but they have only just got under way and there are some limitations. For example, the health threat data that Friends of the Earth have been using is questioned by some. It is based on US definitions, but the principle of having information about health outcomes and hazards is very important, and that work should be continued and strengthened.
The pollution inventory from the Environment Agency is currently restricted to the processes that the agency is able to cover under the regulations, although the scope will be widened. The biggest local source of pollution is usually road traffic, which is not included, but should be; nor are landfill and sewage works, but they will be if the Bill becomes law, as we hope. Indeed, the agency' s press release of 12 May says that its wish to expand the pollution inventory to create a truly comprehensive service could be achieved by an amendment to the Bill. I am sure that that issue will be carefully considered in Committee; the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) promised to raise it. He


mentioned the fact that local councils will have an important role also, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make some encouraging and instructive remarks about how that area can be developed.
It is important that we make progress in trying to reduce pollution at source. It is also important that we hold the polluter to account. We should recognise that pollution from industrial processes has been reduced in recent years, but we should not take that for granted. There is still a long way to go, and a recent article in The Observer revealed that some parts of the country suffer from releases of high levels of cancer-causing chemicals, dioxins and other toxic waste.
The Bill could help to drive standards up and to push pollution down. To do that, it must embrace the measurement of road traffic pollution. It should require a national pollution inventory to empower the public which is not diluted by unreasonable considerations of commercial confidentiality. It must also include the means to set serious targets, which are important if we are to make progress. We must not stay where we are or take what has happened for granted.
The Bill can help to create the conditions to build a body of good practice and high technological competence so that Britain becomes a centre of excellence. It is appropriate that the birthplace of the industrial revolution should become the place where some of the unacceptable consequences of industrialisation are effectively tackled. We should build up a body of research and information for the benefit of the planet. That will benefit this country and the European Union, and will have tremendous international implications. The Bill has great potential and I welcome it.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: The environment is one of the most fashionable causes of the past few decades. It has spawned masses of sacred cows which are trotted out whenever the Government look for a cause that might rouse public concern and interest. It has created many scares, which are good for publicity for the pressure groups, such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, and for businesses such as Ecologika—I shall talk later about how it operates in my constituency—which get fees from other organisations and the Government to tackle problems that often turn out not to be problems after all.
The Bill is designed to appeal to those people who have been, to some extent, taken in by the green lobby. In many cases, people's concerns have been raised needlessly. The Labour party promised those people a clean earth at the election to obtain their votes, but the Government have failed to deliver. They went overboard to secure the green lobby's votes. The tobacco lobby is another good example. The Labour party promised to ban tobacco advertising, only to modify the legislation and to excuse one of the major tobacco advertisers when it came into office.
The concept behind the Bill is riddled with contradictions and anomalies. The Government wish to call a halt to the dash for gas, which will mean more coal pollution, but the gases produced by coal pollution are much more dangerous to the environment than those caused by more efficient fuels, such as gas. If we are serious about reducing pollution, we should realise that atomic energy produces fuel in a much cleaner and

greener way, although the Labour party would never dream of that solution. The Government's idea of alternative fuel is wind farms, which pollute the visual environment with ghastly concrete fins. The energy produced is accompanied by a horrible screeching, which is a noise pollutant for those who live nearby. Furthermore, the production of wind energy is so uneconomic that the whole wretched business has to be heavily subsidised by Government grants. That is the sort of ridiculous situation that the Government are in as a result of the anomalies and contradictions in their approach.
Landfill sites will get some more attention. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) claimed to represent the landfill site of the nation, but I challenge that. The area that I represent is full of landfill sites. They are smelly, and the flies are so bad in the summer that people living within a mile or more cannot open their windows. The sites spawn rats, mice, sparrows and huge flocks of seagulls which, having fed on a mish-mash of domestic waste, leave their droppings on people's washing. The droppings are full of salmonella and other bacteria. However, the Government oppose the sensible alternative of incineration. They have come up with the fanciful idea that we can recycle everything, but goodness knows where all that recycling is to take place.
The ideas behind the Bill do not deal with realities. The Bill is an attempt to appease a particular group of the population whom the Government kidded to vote for them on the ground that they would produce magical results in environmental improvement. The Government are also leaning on the wretched European directive, which will mean more powers for agencies to bear down on small and large businesses alike. When businesses are forced to implement standards that are inappropriate and expensive, the costs are passed on to the consumer.
There is no such thing as a free environmental improvement measure. All such measures add to costs, both domestic and industrial. It is laughable to suggest that all Europe will abide by regulations such as those that appear in the Bill, and thus improve the competitiveness of our industries.

Mr. Harry Barnes: A firm in my constituency—Biwaters—offers an example of how competitiveness can be improved by getting rid of various forms of pollution. That firm was under much pressure because of the pollution that it was causing in the area. When it expanded, it agreed to provisions to ensure that the pollution did not continue. The result was that growth brought more employment to the area, wealth and opportunities were created, and pollution was reduced. So there is no trade-off between pollution and cost.

Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman's example merely shows that our current system is working. The firm in his constituency was able to expand and ended up improving its methods to deal with waste. The previous Government used the polluter pays principle to improve the disposal of industrial waste, and it has worked well.
I wish that Labour Members would not always rubbish our country and the improvements that have taken place. I do not know how many of them have been on parliamentary trips to inspect other parts of the world, but anyone who has been to Mexico will know that the air


there is not breathable and makes one pass out for the first few days. This country's air has been improved out of all recognition, without European directives. We have some of the best air in the world.
We keep on hearing about pollution from motor cars, but new cars produce almost no exhaust particulates. They do produce carbon dioxide, but the total amount of that gas produced by all forms of transport amounts to only 1 per cent. of all the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Incidentally, only 0.5 per cent. of that total is produced by cars. If we took every car and lorry off the road tomorrow, the difference in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be infinitesimal.
The Bill will allow the Government to intensify policies that, eventually, will render our car industry almost non-existent. The industry cannot keep up with the demands that the Government place on it. Safety requirements mean that cars have to be bigger and heavier, and thus consume more petrol, whereas the requirement to reduce carbon dioxide output serves little purpose, as it is not a serious problem.
The Bill will not prevent the large environmental disasters that, regrettably, occur from time to time. Such disasters include accidents at nuclear power plants which, although very regrettable, are rare, given the number of such plants around the world. Nor will the Bill prevent what happened when vessels such as the Torrey Canyon or the Exxon Valdez ran aground, or the pollution that afflicted the Welsh coast. Such incidents are due to human error, which cannot be eliminated by a measure such as this. The powers that the Bill will give the Government will not stop those regrettable, but unfortunate incidents.
I want to pay special attention to the question of landfill sites, which is of particular importance in my constituency. That matter has been mentioned several times already, and is a feature of the Bill. Landfill sites are unpleasant places, but their lifespan is to be reduced and no more will be introduced. Three cheers for that, although the process of phasing out landfill sites is not the result of Labour Government legislation, but has been taking place for some time. However, the alternatives are completely unrealistic. I urge the Government to consider the need to incinerate more of our domestic waste, thus producing energy. Domestic waste can be regarded as a form of biomass, and incinerating it will remove several other pollutants that are in too great abundance.
I seriously object to the fact that, although the Bill will lead to more regulation and add to the costs of industry, it will not make much difference to the environment. The Government have shown that they will slip out of obligations when it suits them, and the smoking pollution to which I referred earlier is one example of their duplicity. Nor will they deal sensibly with the problem of traffic congestion, a matter over which they have hoodwinked the public. The Government are torn between appeasing the motorist and keeping the green lobby happy.
How can congestion be cured without increasing the number of roads and bypasses, and without increasing funding? It is bizarre to suppose that new European regulations, which allow giant European lorries and more heavy goods vehicles on our roads, will help matters. Many of my constituents live up country lanes, along

which relatively small lorries used to bring waste to be dumped. Now, the waste comes in enormous vehicles that destroy the hedgerows. Vibrations from those vehicles cause serious problems to building foundations. Any legislation that allows agencies to produce more madcap schemes is thoroughly bad. I hope that, in Committee, we shall hear some sensible, practical examples of how the effect of legislation can be the opposite of what was intended.
I am uneasy about the reality of improving the environment. Making people pay for the pollution that they produce is admirable, and has produced enormous benefits and great improvements in the way in which industry deals with its waste. The previous Government supported that approach, and that is the way we should go. We should not introduce legislation that bends to the fashionable environmentalist lobbies, whose views are often based on nonsensical and bizarre interpretations of science which will not produce the results that they intend.

Dr. Doug Naysmith: Unlike the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), I support the Bill, which I believe offers the possibility of a big step forward in the way that we manage pollution prevention and control in this country and elsewhere in Europe, as similar legislation is being introduced throughout the European Union.
If one reads the background to the Bill and the discussions that have been held elsewhere on its provisions, it is clear that there have been substantial changes since it began its progress on 26 November last year. There is no doubt, either, that the wide consultations that have been held since July 1997, when the first consultation paper on implementing the European directive was issued, have also helped.
Of course, in most respects the Bill is concerned with a series of fairly dry, technical matters involving an abundance of off-putting acronyms and jargon. Even so, it is widely considered that the fairly substantial changes that have been made have improved the Bill.
I have a real interest in pollution control matters as my constituency contains a substantial concentration of industries that are potential polluters. It includes representatives of power generation, metal processing, mineral industries, the chemical industry, waste disposal and numerous other industries. The Severnside area also acts as an economic generator for the whole of the greater Bristol region, and underpins many of the jobs in that area. It is therefore vital that any new legislation strikes the right balance between protecting the health of the local people and the environment, without imposing unnecessary burdens on industry which could lead to it becoming uncompetitive.
The Bill strikes that balance. The decision not to introduce new legislation to run alongside existing legislation was wise. I know that people to whom I have spoken who are concerned with industry on Severnside would much prefer a one-stop-shop approach instead of having to deal with a number of different agencies. The existing overlap of permissions will also be aided by the new requirements to deal with whole installations rather than individual processes on a single site.
I have also discussed the proposed new legislation with the health and environmental services department of Bristol city council, which favours the integrated


approach that is being adopted. In particular, the council is pleased with the possibility of organising processes to achieve the aim of sustainable development. The directive on integrated pollution prevention and control presents a huge opportunity to break the cycle of industrial land contamination. Requirements to avoid pollution risks, and to return sites to a satisfactory state when an installation closes permanently, must be included in the IPPC permits. That would not only ensure that the polluter pays for any remedial work, but that there was an incentive to manage processes so that contamination was avoided.
In a sense, the consumption of raw materials and energy is at the heart of sustainable development, and the way in which different business sectors respond to that pressure will be the key to future success. The Bill's proposals may help to influence the culture of industrial investment in the UK, which is traditionally short term in comparison with the longer-term view of some competitor nations. Encouragement of better energy efficiency will be a new responsibility for local authorities in this context and may not be easy to enforce. Measuring emissions may be child's play by comparison, but if sensible agreements can be reached, the effort will be worth while.
The EU directive and the Bill also emphasise noise prevention and reduction in an industrial setting, and that, too, marks an advance in treating noise pollution in a manner similar to that employed for other emissions for control purposes. I understand that there is currently some sort of turf war between local authorities and the Environment Agency about who should have the last word, but once that has been resolved, nothing but good can come.
I welcome the unifying and simplifying aspects of the Bill, and I understand that the Confederation of British Industry, local authorities and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health do too. That is an unusual combination, but it provides some measure of the broad support for the Bill.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: My constituents will welcome the Bill. Even Britain's most easterly constituency is part of the UK, of Europe and of the world. We share a common interest in preventing environmental damage in pursuit of a sustainable future. Pollution is the sharp end of environmental damage and dealing effectively with it must be at the heart of any environmental policy. I am pleased that the Bill emphasises the reality that pollution—particularly of the air and of water—respects and recognises no national boundaries. Flows of air and water do not stop at border controls.
It is important to give force to the Europe-wide directive, and it is fitting to do so in the week of the elections to the European Parliament. Our approach must be integrated across the countries of Europe. Everyone must sign up to the same standards, and enforce them to the same degree. The European Union has the tasks of ensuring that standards are enforced to the same degree in every country, and of showing that that is so. Many people in the UK are still convinced that other countries do not enforce standards to the same degree as we do. I do not know whether those allegations are true, but the belief is commonly held, and the EU must address it so that we may all be confident that regulations are equally enforced. We need higher standards across the EU, and a level playing field on which our businesses can compete.
Integration is also important to the approaches taken by individual Governments towards addressing the various forms of pollution, the regulations that govern operators, and the Government machinery for enforcement of regulations. If all that is integrated, we shall have an effective system that businesses involved can cope with and manage.
I want to focus on the relationship between environmental management and economic well-being, particularly as it affects my constituency. Waveney has particular reasons for welcoming improvements in the tackling of pollution. First, we are a coastal constituency, and tourism forms a major part of our economy. We have many attractions, but the basis of our tourism is clean beaches, clean sea water and clean rivers in the Broads national park. I am proud that since 1988 we have attained 51 beach awards and 13 European blue flags. Lowestoft was voted the best beach in the country by the English Tourist Board in 1991, and it still holds the title because the competition has not been run since then. More than 4,000 jobs are involved in tourism, and we have a clear interest in preventing pollution of our oceans and the North sea.
In 1978, an oil tanker shed some of its load, causing oil sludge on our beaches in north and south Lowestoft. A clean and healthy marine environment is also a necessity for good fisheries. Preventing pollution in seas around the country would be good for our fishing industry, which is particularly important to Lowestoft. Despite the gloom and doom we hear about fishing, I believe that we have a bright and sustainable future. Our main company has invested £3 million in a new trawler, which it would not have done unless it believed it had a future. The Bill will help to ensure that fish can breed in our marine environment.
When we implement environmental regulations, it is important to ensure that affected industries can adjust to change. We cannot afford to destroy businesses along the way. Let me offer a brief example that is currently causing concern. Anglian Water is implementing a current European directive, and Lowestoft fish merchants are concerned about what is happening in Grimsby.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment the fact that fish merchants face an increase in their sewage bills of 1,000 per cent. because of the way in which Anglian Water is implementing the directive. No business can cope with that, and my fish merchants are worried because a new sewage treatment plant is coming and they may be faced with the same problem in a year or two's time. A means must be found of managing the change, and I hope that my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend can find a way to resolve the situation. If they cannot, people at the Lowestoft fish market, on which our economy is heavily dependent, will continue to be worried.
That example illustrates the need to gain environmental advances without economic disbenefits, particularly in areas of high unemployment. Hon. Members who have studied the league table of unemployment in travel-to-work areas will know that a large number of coastal towns appear among the worst 20 areas.
My constituency has jobs in tourism and fishing. Another major source of employment is the offshore oil and gas industry, as is the case in several other towns


around the coast. Therefore, we must carefully consider how the Bill relates to that important source of employment with its 350,000 jobs nationally, and given the 16 per cent. of industrial investment that it makes.
The industry has stated up front that it wants to play its part in developing an expanding environmental regime for offshore operations in partnership with the Government. It does not wish to run away from environmental responsibility. Indeed, during this debate I managed to take part in a meeting upstairs where the Minister for Energy and Industry was discussing that matter. He said that since he has been in office the industry has taken action in advance of legislation, which shows its attitude.
However, I wish to bring one or two concerns to the attention of the House. One concern is the means by which we reach the desired ends. Offshore installations vary because of geographical strata, technology, infrastructure and so forth. When trying to reach those ends, it is important that we consider installations on a site-by-site basis and recognise that different provisions should be made for different cases in relation to persons, circumstances, areas or locality.
I was heartened by the Minister's remarks on that subject at the beginning of the debate, when he mentioned flexibility and approaching matters on a site-by-site basis. We have to meet the desired ends, but there are different ways of doing so. We do not want the blanket application of specific technologies. There will be different solutions for different installations to reach those ends and that must be an important aim for the Government.
My second worry concerns the dreadful acronyms involved and the fact that BAT, or best available techniques, is to replace BATNEEC—best available technology without entailing excessive costs. The remarks of the noble Lord Whitty in another place and of the Minister this evening are heartening. They have confirmed that costs will form part of the new BAT regime, but it would be helpful if the Minister could make that absolutely clear when summing up. It will take away some of the worries and fears if, when seeking the best available technological solutions, we have regard to cost and the fact that it will not be excessive.
One cost with which offshore installations will have to deal is that of emissions from offshore combustion units. That will form part of the estimated additional £300 million that the industry feels the Bill will cost it. The industry questions one aspect that is related to combustion units and whether the cost involved will bring about significant improvements. A recent study carried out by the Norwegians—who, as we know, have a good environmental record—concluded that
the environmental effects from combustion units in the North Sea do not pose a significant risk to populations or the environment.
That study was carried out in March 1999 and was called "The Contribution to Nitrogen Deposition and Ozone Formation in South Norway from Atmospheric Emission Related to the Petroleum Activity in the North Sea." It showed that emissions from the British and Norwegian sectors
contribute less than 5 per cent. each of the measured … values for coniferous trees during the growth season.

If we are to compare emissions from combustion units with those from coniferous trees we must think seriously. I am not that familiar with the study and I do not understand all the science behind it, but that is a point worthy of consideration.
In searching for better environmental standards, we must always ensure that we get the best bang for our buck, to use the slang expression—that we make the most difference environmentally for the costs that will be incurred. Furthermore, in the consultation papers an appeals system was outlined for the onshore sector, but was apparently not suggested for the offshore sector in the Department of Trade and Industry paper. Natural justice would suggest that there ought to be an appeals procedure for that sector, too.
These are important matters for the British offshore oil and gas industry. The remarkable thing about that industry is that it is still here. Twenty years ago, people said that we would have run out of oil and gas by now, or that it would no longer be viable to extract it. The industry is still here because costs have been reduced so that marginal fields can be exploited. We need to get the cost balance right so that we can continue to exploit the resources that are left for 30 years or more. Now, 60 per cent. of the operation in the North sea involves gas, which is a relatively environmentally friendly fuel. It is important that we are able to extract and use up all or most of that gas—that finite and valuable resource—while the infrastructure is there. It would be very good environmental husbandry to take out that gas while we are able to do so, and that is why we need to consider costs alongside the important environmental advances that the industry also agrees need to be made.

Mr. David Drew: So much has already been said in the debate, which is coming to an end, so I hope not to re-rehearse the arguments. However, having been able to listen to so much of the debate, I want to pick up on certain points, even if somewhat briefly.
The Bill is important because it dwells on the vital subject of pollution, which affects us all in one way or another. The underlying principles of the Bill were well rehearsed by the Labour party when in opposition, but it is worth reinforming and reinforcing them. To start with, we have the precautionary principle, which is so important in its own right. We also have the principle that the polluter pays. Both are integral to any legislation that deals with pollution. We can underline those with the principle of transparency and, in particular, the predilection to inform and keep records, to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred. Linked to that principle is the increasing awareness of the relevance of participation and, certainly, consultation.
All those are important principles and they have produced legislation that I hope will be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House—one would hope that no one will vote against it. Interestingly, the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman rightly said that a Conservative Government were responsible for passing the directive—the Bill is very much an enhancement of that directive—but his argument was kicked to pieces on the Conservative Back Benches and I know not why.
I am genuinely pleased to see the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) in his place. I have always found him to be sound on environmental matters, if not


so sound on agriculture, where we may disagree on some of the antecedents of various features affecting agricultural Britain at present. However, he made a pretty negative speech about the Bill. I thought that he would be genuinely in favour of some of the improvements and enhancements in it.

Mr. Gray: I was trying to point out, perhaps not expertly, that unlike the Millbank tower-controlled drones on the Labour side, we Conservative Members are able to express our own views. My view is that we in the United Kingdom apply the highest possible environmental standards. Therefore, why should it be necessary for us to pay lip service to a European directive to achieve what we are already achieving? I made that point to the hon. Member for Stoke—on—Trent, North (Ms Walley).

Mr. Drew: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. In many respects, the way in which we approach the subject may be laudable, but anyone who has an interest in it—I imagine that all hon. Members have—can recall instances where that has not always been the case. In considering some of the issues that have been raised in the debate, I hope, in a roundabout way, to show that we can always improve and extend our provision and that we can always learn, dare I say it, from examples in other parts of the world where things are not necessarily being done better, but differently.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who is not in her place, asked whether we are driving our motor car industry out of existence. I do not think that we are, but some important driving factors come from the United States, where compliance standards are being ratcheted up greatly. They may have different views about congestion costs, but they are worried about the environmental consequences of vehicles whose emissions are too high. We can always learn from abroad and ensure that we are willing to take things forward.
Hon. Members have asked why we need to move to BAT when we have BATNEEC. In a previous life as a councilor, I got well used to BATNEEC. The derogatory reference to it as catnip was interesting. I am not sure what that stands for, but I think that it means that people do what they need to do to avoid prosecution, rather than doing what they should do. My experience of BATNEEC was that it did not work in the most extreme cases. Local authority environmental health officers were often unable to pursue companies.
One case springs to mind. It was understood that companies could introduce a new form of technology involving a centrifuge to remove the residue, which they were putting into the atmosphere, of a nasty green powder. To be fair, the companies themselves thought that, but they kept saying that they could not afford it. It went on year after year. The next-door neighbour was a resident—there were also businesses nearby—who kept demanding that the change be made, but it never quite happened. If we can define BAT more carefully, some instances where an improvement is promised but not delivered could be avoided.
According to Opposition Members, we are anti small business—if not anti business—in the way in which we are making the changes, but one of the biggest gainers is small business. I regularly get complaints from small businesses about how business treats them with regard

to pollution. Without naming or shaming, I have a case involving a large depot that has a poor record on oil spillage, which directly affects a market garden and a smallholding next door. The neighbours have regularly pursued the matter with the Environment Agency and I am pleased that we seem to be getting somewhere. It is naive to think that small business does not have a view or regards this only as a cost when it can see the benefits in cases where they are affected by the often deplorable behaviour of other businesses. I shall qualify this point in a moment, but while business wants a level playing field and fairness, it also wants to know that the costs of regulation are not being introduced in an unprecedented or unfair manner.

Mr. Gray: Small businesses that suffer pollution from big business will of course wholeheartedly favour big business being controlled. However, the Federation of Small Businesses, which speaks for small business across the nation, has made it 100 per cent. plain that it opposes the Bill because it will damage small businesses. How can the hon. Gentleman argue that the Bill, which brings 2,000 small businesses into the control mechanism, is good for small business?

Mr. Drew: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman heard what I said. Of course regulation implies that there may be additional costs, but businesses that are being unduly affected by the behaviour of other businesses will favour the changes. His point did not come up in my consultations with the Federation of Small Businesses locally. There may be a time lag and small businesses may not be sure about what regulations are coming, but I believe that they will welcome what they see as a fair and just system. People who break the regulations should be pursued and the polluter should pay. That cannot be done without regulation. Without it, this policy would be empty gestures, hot air and rhetoric. It is wrong to say that small business opposes the measure. It will see the benefits when clear offenders are dealt with.
I welcome the inclusion of energy efficiency. I hope that we are moving towards examining standard assessment procedures and how we assess building regulations so that we can improve the quality of our stock to ensure that we get the benefit of not allowing energy to escape through walls or roofs. Greater care should be taken in respect of noise pollution, which affects many more people than is often thought.
There is also the question of moving ecological management forward with, for example, EMAS—ecological management auditing systems—schemes. The hon. Member for Billericay may not like some of what is happening, but there is a spirit of enterprise and of wanting to do things better. That can all come together to make our world a better place to live in and to enable business to make a profit through its enterprising activities.
The qualifications that I want to make are not radically different from those of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). Like him, I have been contacted by the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association. We need some clarification on where we are with the directive. I am sure that that will come in Committee, although the Minister may want to allude to it now. Is annexe 1 the way to curtail regulation, or will we go beyond that? There is always an argument about what constitutes harm and how to redefine that.
With those qualifications, I welcome this excellent Bill. I hope that it gets a fair wind tonight so that all its principles can be implemented.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) obviously made an impression because he has been mentioned by several Labour Members. I will be no exception because I want to refer to his analysis of European directives. He said that there were three ways in which the nations of the European Union could respond to directives. They could respond enthusiastically, as he felt that we did in the United Kingdom; they could ignore the directives, as tended to happen in Italy; or, as he favoured, they could drag their feet by doing only enough to avoid prosecution. That seems to be a strange attitude to adopt towards an organisation with which we are supposed to be associated.
The hon. Gentleman hit on a fourth possibility when he suggested that the Germans did not need to do any of those things because—he claimed—they were already operating the directives and therefore we were adopting their ideas. In fact, the Bill contains a fifth position, because it not only adopts a Council directive, it goes considerably beyond that, which is one of the most exciting things about the Bill. Even the long title of the Bill refers to
otherwise preventing and controlling pollution".
It goes beyond the provisions in the Council's directives. That is explained in clause 1(1)(b) and (c), which refer to
regulating, otherwise than in pursuance of that Directive, activities which are capable of causing any environmental pollution;
and
otherwise preventing or controlling emissions capable of causing any such pollution.
There are a series of definitions that add to those provisions and show that the Bill contains serious measures to try to tackle pollution. The method by which that will be done is set out in the regulation provisions in clause 2. Some people are entirely anti-regulation; we have heard some speeches to that effect, such as the one from the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). Other people are much more favourable to regulation; they realise the problems of bureaucracy and want to control it, but they believe that fair regulation systems can operate.
The position of the official Opposition was given by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. He said that we could evade the regulations by having the measures clearly set out in the Bill, so that it explained the type of matters that would be dealt with. The problem faced by the Government in introducing the measure is the complexity of environmental protection and how to handle it. For example, in relation to dioxins, only one criterion is set down for unacceptable levels of dioxin—that is for dioxin in water. Apart from that, there are various examples of levels that people judge create dangers and difficulties and on which action is needed. In those circumstances, it would be difficult to introduce measures—the legislation would be massive—that tried to set out every level that had to be adhered to, every

provision and every complex arrangement that would have to be made in one firm, so that it could establish the difficulties that it faced and so that the provisions for action in the Bill's schedules could be undertaken.
The procedure set out in the Bill is the best that can be managed. There are a series of avenues through which regulation can be introduced, but it will be introduced by affirmative procedure so that there is an opportunity to kick an item into touch if people disagree with it and feel that it is unduly bureaucratic. We can overcome the difficulties expressed by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford by considering that general provision.
A problem in my constituency would have been handled much better by this Bill than by the existing provisions. About a year ago, there were two massive incidents involving the escape of acid gas at the Sarp plant at Killamarsh. As a result, the population of the area mobilised and organised; they were adamant that they wanted rid of that chemical reclamation plant and the pollution that they had suffered over many years. The two incidents that had led to that crisis and the mobilisation of those people were extreme examples of pollution. Since then, enforcement notices have been issued in relation to other shortcomings of the firm and prosecutions in respect of the two incidents are currently taking place.
Clause 2 would make available to the Secretary of State a regulation procedure that could have applied in those cases. Clause 2(3)(b) states that he can
make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different persons, circumstances, areas or localities.
That might appear to be a very wide-ranging potential power to put in the hands of the Secretary of State, even if any regulations he made would have to pass the affirmative resolution procedure before they could take effect. However, in the case I described, such a power would have allowed the possibility of consulting the Environment Agency, local government, the industry itself, the small businesses in the area affected by Sarp's operations, and the local action committee which was organised, Residents Against Sarp Pollution. All those views could have been taken on board.
In fact, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment did all that, by visiting the plant and meeting members of the action group and local councillors on 30 July last year. However, he was restricted in terms of possible avenues of action. The Bill would open up those avenues. The Bill might also present the Secretary of State with some problems, because he will face pressure from various local organisations that want to push him into taking action on certain matters, but such democratic pressure is good and healthy.
The Bill will be of great advantage to us in the work to contain and control pollution. It will help us to ensure that people operate according to best practice and that pollutant-creating plants do not affect the population in their locality. Having a healthy local population strikes me as being of great economic advantage: people live longer, earn longer and pay more taxes, and they do not go to hospital as often, so the cost to society of their treatment is less. Therefore, even if we treat people as mere economic units working to create wealth in society, legislation that is sensitive to the need to tackle the problems of pollution cannot be said to impose an excessive burden on society; rather, it is a benefit to


everyone in the long run. The Bill will be of economic and social benefit and it will improve the quality of life of everyone in society.
The Sarp site at Killamarsh is next to a school playing field: they now send out what is known as a sniffer patrol before letting young children play on that field. Tackling and overcoming such problems can do much to enhance the quality of human life. Ultimately, it is all about running an effective, well-organised society that creates wealth and distributes it properly among its people. We should not accept the views of those who want to do nothing and who would leave it to industry to act out of the goodness of its heart. In a system that produces goods but also produces pollution, people benefit, but they also suffer. If we weigh up the costs and benefits of such a society, the overall balance is supposed to be to our advantage, but there are such things as diseconomies, which should be subtracted from the benefits of social activity.
The Bill is important. Governments always have to be watched when they produce regulations, so we must have opportunities to scrutinise and debate such regulations. Some Governments will not produce regulations that are good enough, and they will have to be prodded into doing so. However, I do not see any means other than the Bill of building a system for the future that results in a decent society that protects us from the worst of pollution.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) ended where the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) began—with the regulations, which are an essential part of delivering on the Bill. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford expressed his concerns, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment made it abundantly clear that the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation believed that as all the regulations were subject to the affirmative procedure, adequate parliamentary control would be retained.
That was underlined by an undertaking given by our noble Friend Lord Whitty that any future amendments to the regulations which changed provisions previously included in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 would be put to Parliament for consideration under the affirmative procedure. We therefore believe that the proper safeguards are in place.
In his contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for North—East Derbyshire made the particularly effective point that regulations are so valuable because they allow flexibility to be brought to bear on a developing scene that is immensely detailed. As he said, that approach avoids static, bureaucratic imposition on industries and business.
Another concern was expressed by the hon. Members for West Chelmsford and for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). I was somewhat bemused when the hon. Member for North Wiltshire pulled out of the air the figure of 2,000 small businesses, which he claimed would be caught by the Bill. It is clear in the directive that thresholds have been set in annexe 1, below which the directive will not apply. That means that small firms are unlikely to come within the scope of the directive.
The Federation of Small Businesses has responded constructively to each of the three consultation exercises that we carried out, and it will continue to be consulted. The federation welcomed some of the deregulatory changes that the Government are making in replacing current regimes—for example, the use of standard application forms, which will save manpower costs, and the use of standard permit conditions, which will lead to lower charges. There is scope for less frequent permit reviews for industry, resulting in cost savings, regulators' decision times will be reduced from four months to three months in certain uncontentious cases, and there is the possibility of greater use of standard permit conditions or general binding rules to streamline procedures. I repeat that, as my right hon. Friend said, only a fraction of the Federation of Small Businesses' 130,000 members will be affected.

Mr. Gray: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Jackson: No.

Mr. Gray: The hon. Lady asked a question.

Ms Jackson: I did not ask a question; I made a statement.
Another concern expressed not only by Conservative Members, but by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), related to the use of best available techniques—BAT. My hon. Friend was worried about costs, as the Bill will bring into its remit the offshore gas and oil installations which, as he said, play such a major part in the economy of his area.
The directive states, with regard to best available techniques:
Available techniques shall mean those developed on a scale which allows implementation in the relevant industrial sector, under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into consideration the costs and advantages".
I trust that I have addressed my hon. Friend's concerns. The site-specific nature of the provisions means that there can be no excessive costs and no bureaucratic regime can be imposed. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke—on—Trent, North (Ms Walley) offers the House her apologies for the fact that she is not in her place, as she had a prior engagement in her constituency. She brought to the debate all her expertise, information and her commitment to all matters environmental, which does not stem simply from her membership of the Environmental Audit Committee and the all-party environment group. She has pursued environmental matters with passion and integrity, not only while she has been a Member of the House, but before that.
My hon. Friends the Members for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger), for North-East Derbyshire and for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) highlighted the impact that failure to protect our environment has had on their constituencies and on their constituents, and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney told us about the other side of the coin. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North pointed out, her constituency suffered for many years from the effects of the industrial revolution and


environmental protection has assisted her local authorities and communities in beginning to improve their environment.
The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire has suffered more than once from the impact of disastrous accidents or failure to protect the environment adequately, and he spoke with a direct appreciation of the benefits that will be brought into play by the Bill. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke—on—Trent, North—indeed, all my hon. Friends—welcomed the holistic approach that is inherent in combining the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the European directive, which will mean that there will be a less bureaucratic regime. It will also be possible for businesses and industries, which must respond to the requirements of the legislation, to know precisely what is being requested of them.
I was much intrigued by the contribution of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), and I regret that she is not in her place. I distinctly remember the first time that she and I exchanged opinions across the Floor of the Chamber, when I was a new Member of the House: she said that, as a scientist, she knew that no damage was being inflicted, there was no hole in the ozone layer and there was no such thing as global warming. I was fascinated to hear tonight that her opinion on those matters has basically not altered.
I was also fascinated by the hon. Lady's ire at what she claimed to be the present Government's introduction of the Bill. She seemed to be entirely ignorant of the fact that the basis of the Bill—the 1990 Act—was introduced by the Conservative Government. The directive, which is being incorporated into that Act through the Bill, was signed by them. However, it is always a pleasure to listen to her because of the delicious frisson caused by disagreeing with virtually everything she has to say.
The contribution of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) was essentially concerned with public information and he said that a comprehensive inventory should be available to the general public. I was somewhat surprised that he cavilled about that because my right hon. Friend and the Government are passionate about developing a comprehensive inventory. As my right hon. Friend said, the Government believe that local people should know what is happening in their own area and information should be available and accessible to them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) was keen to welcome that accessibility. The Bill provides a wide-ranging power requiring information on emissions to be included in a pollution inventory, whether a person is the holder of a permit or not. We welcome the launch by the Environment Agency on 12 May of its inventory in which information on emissions from 2,000 integrated pollution prevention and control processes is presented in an easily accessible form on the internet. We are examining the extension of a similar reporting requirement to the 13,000 processes regulated by local authorities and we hope to announce our conclusions shortly.
As I am sure the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington knows, the Environment Agency has plans to require landfill sites and sewage treatment works to make an information report. We shall consider the proposals carefully. We are delivering on our pledges. We expect to

announce shortly our conclusions on the extension of the reporting requirement to local authorities. It is wrong to say that the Bill needs amendment before landfill sites and sewage treatment works can be required to report. Under the Bill as it stands, information can be required from any operator, whether or not he holds a permit.

Mr. Brake: Will the Minister seek clarification from the Environment Agency on its view that an amendment to the Bill is required?

Ms Jackson: I am somewhat bemused by that. I am sure that those at the Environment Agency have read the Bill, and it will be clear that paragraph 11 of schedule 1 gives the power to require information from anyone, whether or not he is a permit holder.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire seemed either not to be aware or not to care very much that the 1990 Act and the directive came into being under the previous Administration.

Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Jackson: If I may finish this point. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, and I can well remember when, during an examination of the British maritime industry, he boasted that as a maritime lawyer he knew nothing about ships. Clearly, it has been central to his professional life to speak at great length on subjects about which he knows absolutely nothing—a habit that he indulged again this evening. He was much concerned about the timing of the directive.

Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Jackson: If I may just finish. The directive was agreed in the summer of 1995 by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer).
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire was also concerned about increasing the number of businesses to be regulated from 2,000 to 6,000. The IPPC requires that. Again, that was agreed under the previous Government by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, for whom the hon. Gentleman worked.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way at last. She thinks that she knows a lot about these matters. For the record, I am not and have never been a maritime lawyer, and I have never said that I was. I have never claimed to be a maritime lawyer, so I do not know to which exchange she was referring. I am afraid to say that she knows as much about what happened in the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee as she does about what happened this evening. The point I was making was that the provisions in clause 1(1)(b) and (c) go a great deal further than annexe 1 of the directive. Instead of this cheap actress activity of poking fun across the Chamber, perhaps she should address herself to the Bill. Does she accept that the Bill goes significantly further than the terms of annexe 1 of the directive? Or perhaps she does not know.

Ms Jackson: It is bizarre that the hon. Gentleman intervened earlier and demanded to know why pollution


from light was not within the remit of the Bill. He clearly never listens either to what other people say or to what he says himself, because he cannot remember his own contribution.
A point tellingly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) highlighted how the Bill can protect small businesses from the environmental depredations of larger firms and industries. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney emphasised the importance of environmental protection in his area. He referred with no small pride to the primacy of the beach at Lowestoft, and stressed that it is by having clean beaches, sea and air that tourism, which is vital in his part of the world as it is in many parts of the United Kingdom, and the well-being of those areas and their local people can be protected and sustained.
We believe that most people both inside and outside the House will welcome the Bill. The issue of environmental protection is increasingly important, not only as it affects the quality of life, but in terms of improving the health of our people and the health of the world. Certainly, we have made clear commitments in regard to Europe; indeed, we have made international commitments. We believe that the Bill will help us to meet those commitments, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to standing Order No. 63 (Committee of Bills).

Orders of the Day — POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pollution Prevention and Control Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure incurred by any Minister of the Crown in consequence of the Act, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—[Mr. Pope.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pollution Prevention and Control Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the imposition of charges under regulations made under the Act.—[Mr. Pope.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 46): Private Finance Initiative (HC 408), which was laid before this House on 7th May, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Orders of the Day — ASSISTANCE TO NEWLY INDEPENDENT STATES AND MONGOLIA

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 5263/99, a draft Council Regulation on the provision of assistance to economic reform and recovery in the Newly Independent States and Mongolia; and supports the Government's position that the proposed Regulation is broadly acceptable, that the Government will work with Member States to secure a Regulation which will ensure greater emphasis on social and environmental issues, maintain TACIS as a technical assistance instrument, improve procedures and incorporate a dialogue-driven approach to programming.—[Mr. Pope.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Medicines Control Agency

Mr. David Drew: I am pleased to be able to present a petition against the powers of the Medicines Control Agency, which was signed by 262 people, most of whom are from my constituency.
The petition supports the views of Consumers for Health Choice, the Health Food Manufacturers Association, the National Association of Health Stores and others. It
Declares that Government proposals would give the Medicines Control Agency … virtually unlimited powers to classify safe products as medicines. This would mean that the MCA could remove at a stroke products that are vital to the good health of many consumers and are currently sold under food law. This is an abuse of the democratic process and a denial of freedom of choice.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Department of Health to reconsider its proposals and to introduce an immediate moratorium preventing the MCA from declaring these safe products to be medicines except on the grounds of illegal claims or safety, and, further, to introduce new legislation appropriate to the special needs of safe, natural health products.
To lie upon the Table.

Guild Trust, Preston

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the dismissal of the three non-executive directors of the Guild Community Health Care NHS trust. I am also grateful for the opportunity to raise it at such an early hour. Last time I introduced an Adjournment debate, I did so after 6 am, so nowadays I think long and hard before applying for such debates.
This is a serious issue. Two of the three non-executive directors involved are constituents of mine, as are many of the trust's employees, and one of the directors is a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who is present. The three non-executive directors were sacked on 17 May for committing the crime of doing their jobs. They are well-respected citizens in the Preston area, and have served the public well with their actions during the case.
This bitter story is one of incompetence, mismanagement, intrigue, the publication of two independent reports, a murder, the suspension of a chief executive, the resignation of a chairman, the intervention of the hon. Member for Preston (Audrey Wise)—to whom I wrote telling her that I would mention her this evening—the dismissal of the three and, finally, the piéce de resistance: yesterday's sacking of the chief executive.
Some might think that the timing—only yesterday—of the sacking of Les Howell, the chief executive, was rather suspicious. The non-executives wanted the chief executive removed many months ago—but therein lies another strange tale.
The chief executive's suspension can be traced back to 8 March 1996, when one of the trust's patients, Daniel Holden, murdered a 42-year-old man named David Spencer. The East Lancashire health authority established an independent inquiry into Daniel Holden's care and treatment, which was chaired by William Greenwood, a solicitor, of Steele, Greenwood, Burnley. Also on the panel were a former consultant forensic psychiatrist, a former director of clinical services, and a former director of personnel of a national health service trust. They are all extremely well-respected figures in the medical profession, and it would behove anyone to take heed of their findings.
The inquiry's damning report was made available in October. It described Daniel Holden's treatment as far from ideal, and said that Daniel was not receiving the care to which he was obliged by statute to receive.
At the time of the murder, Daniel was on the supervision register of the Langdale unit, which is a medium secure unit at Whittingham, in my constituency. The inquiry described enormous deficiencies in Daniel's care and treatment, and said that he did not have a proper care plan, that his case notes were inadequate, and that procedure had been largely ignored. It also said that interdisciplinary and interpersonal workings within the trust were inadequate, and that communication between Daniel's family, his general practitioner and other groups was deficient.
Page 44 of the report states that the shortcomings and omissions in the supervision register included:
a care plan that aimed to reduce risk and ensure that Daniel Holden's care needs were reviewed regularly, and that contact by a key worker was maintained;
allowing for Daniel Holden's social worker, his GP, a relative or carer—or indeed even Daniel Holden himself—to participate in the initial discussion and decision;
ensuring that the initial decision to put Daniel Holden on the Supervision Register was part of the
care programme approach;
discussion;
the carrying out of a risk assessment;
taking evidence from the criminal justice agencies when making the original judgments;
informing Daniel Holden orally of his inclusion on the register".
The report goes on to describe deficiencies in the care programme approach, including omission of
written evidence of systematic assessment of health and social care needs;
a care plan agreed between relevant professionals, Daniel Holden and his carers recorded in writing;
close working between health and social services …
a clear understanding of what to do if Daniel Holden failed to meet requirements or commitments.
The report is damning.
On page 51, the report describes some of the problems with the chief executive. It states:
However, it is consistent with our other findings about the managerial style of the trust, which was detached, uninvolved and autocratic. The chief executive insisted that Dr. Guly"—
who was the consultant forensic psychiatrist—
carried an onerous work load of 24 beds plus a clinical directorship, and then put further pressure on her to assume responsibility for the high dependency unit. We find this attitude to have been oppressive. Whatever problems the trust may have had, it should not have acted in a manner that could have led to inadequate performance of her clinical duties and the clinical directorship.
On page 57, the report recommends:
We believe that chief executives should be highly visible individuals who draw together responsibility for the planning, implementation and the achievement of corporate objectives, to provide the best possible care to patients within existing resources. In our view, these responsibilities have not been adequately discharged—hence the plethora of critical reports about the unit".
The Guild Community Health Care NHS trust was itself at that time facing the threat of losing the contract for medium secure services. Therefore, the chairman, Patricia Diamond, and four non-executives met the chief executives of the four purchasing authorities. At that meeting, the chief executives of the purchasing authorities spoke of their concern about the trust's management style, and the consequent culture of blame and fear within the trust.
Attempts to change the culture by Dr. Kendle—a non-executive—with a statement of intent were reluctantly accepted by the chief executive. The chief executive had a very close working relationship with the chairman of the trust, Patricia Diamond. It was in no way surprising that the statement of intent was ignored, the culture of blame remained and senior staff continued to leave the Guild trust, demoralised.
When the Holden report was sent to the Guild trust, the chief executive responded to it with no reference to the board. The non-executives were informed of the


report's findings only after the chief executive's response. That was the final straw for the three non-executives, who went to the regional headquarters with three executive directors to discuss their concerns and seek advice. Those at regional headquarters said that they shared the concerns of the board members and supported the course of action that the non-executives proposed—to vote on a motion of no confidence in the chief executive.
Before that action could be taken, the chairman of the board, Patricia Diamond, placed the chief executive on extended leave, which, after pressure from the board, was converted into suspension on full pay. That again demonstrates the close working relationship between the chief executive and the chairman.
The Guild trust then set up its own inquiry with the following terms of reference:
To investigate the criticisms of the Chief Executive of the Trust made in the draft Report into the care and treatment of Daniel Holden dated July 1998.
To investigate the conduct of the Chief Executive following the receipt of the draft Report.
To investigate the Chief Executive's management style and conduct of relationships with Board members"—
and various other individuals, and—
"to make such recommendations to the Trust Board as the Panel considers appropriate."
The panel consisted of Anne Galbraith, the former chairman of an NHS trust in Newcastle upon Tyne, and Neil Campbell, the chief executive of the Dumfries and Galloway health board. They are well respected in the health service and serious attention should be given to their findings. The panel spent five days in Preston taking evidence and was keen to preserve the anonymity of the witnesses. The report makes chilling reading and is more damning than the Holden report. It says that the chief executive's handling of the report was ill advised. Page 7 talks of the chief executive's autocratic and non-consultative approach. Page 8 states:
"the overwhelming number of respondents do not have confidence in the Chief Executive."
The report further states that those who had lost confidence in the chief executive, Mr. Howell, included virtually all the consultants in the trust, the major purchasers from the trust, the community health council, some representatives of the university, the trade union representatives and a sizeable number of trust board members, as well as a number of operational directors.
The report also says that, because of the close working relationship between the chief executive and the chairman, an avenue of checks and balances of corporate governance of the trust was lacking. Page 12 states that the panel was also greatly concerned by the weight of opinion among the consultant body showing a lack of confidence in Mr. Howell's management style.
The report's first recommendation said:
In the light of Mr. Howell having lost the confidence of many of the key leaders in the trust, including the clinical community and significant external partners, to an extent that his position as chief executive has become untenable, the trust board are recommended to take immediate appropriate action.
Significantly, the report does not ask for the resignation of the non-executives, who raised the issue and pushed it when that was difficult. After it was published, the chairman and another board member, David Nelson, met

consultants, union representatives and community health council representatives without consulting other board members about what they were doing.
After this was raised with the regional office by the non-executive directors, Patricia Diamond, the chairman, visited the regional office and was asked to resign, which she did in January 1999. The regional office then recommended that a solicitor, Mr. Martin Edwards, be appointed to help handle the departure of the chief executive. Many options were investigated. But for the cost of litigation, there would have been immediate dismissal. However, the solicitor cautioned the board to be very careful about its decision and suggested that a compensation package for Mr. Howell's departure might be appropriate.
As discussions ensued, the hon. Member for Preston wrote a letter to the acting chief executive of the trust, challenging the Holden report and commenting on the Galbraith-Campbell report. In her letter of 17 January, the hon. Lady wrote:
As I read the Report, I found myself repeatedly thinking, 'But this is childish". I looked for evidence of wrong-doing and all I saw was gossip and intrigue against the Chief Executive.
I do not believe that the Chairman resigned willingly or that she accepts this Report.
I do not accept this report. If I did I would have to conclude that the only sensible course for the Secretary of State to take would be to dissolve the whole Board and start again. No-one comes out of it with credit, and the Board members themselves appear from it to be totally ineffectual.
As we saw at Question Time today, the hon. Lady has not changed her mind. She fully backs and endorses the chief executive, even though the Holden report and the Galbraith-Campbell report are damning and even though the chief executive was sacked yesterday by the new chairman of the trust, with the unanimous support of the board. I assume that that decision has been endorsed by the Secretary of State for Health and by the region.
The hon. Member for Preston says in her letter that all the board members were ineffectual, but that cannot have been true because at least three non-executive directors pushed the case to where it is today. The hon. Lady's letter is one of the oddest that I have read. It even states at the end that the chairman should be reinstated and the report rejected.
I also understand that the hon. Member for Preston spoke with the Secretary of State for Health, pressing her rather strange ideas on him. He may not have agreed with her every word, but he has agreed with her conclusions: to get rid of all the board members. It is a great shame that when I asked the Secretary of State for Health about the matter, he did not reply to my question himself even though he was the man responsible for the sacking. I wrote to him asking him to be here this evening, so that he could answer some of the points directly, but he is not here.
I should like to know whether the discussion between the hon. Member for Preston and the Secretary of State was minuted; if so, will he publish the minutes of that discussion? What discussions did the Secretary of State have with the region? The region fully backed the actions of the board, but in May it told members of the board that it had lost control four months earlier. To whom had it lost control? Did it lose control directly to the Secretary of State for Health? What has been his involvement in the affair?
On 19 May during an Opposition Day debate on the health service, the Secretary of State said:
Whistleblowers on the staff should have nothing to fear provided of course that they tell the truth.
When my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Health said, "So why sack them?" the Secretary of State replied:
I cannot sack any NHS staff. That comment just displays the ignorance of Opposition Members."—[Official Report, 19 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 1143.]
If that is the case, it is interesting that in a press release issued on 17 May 1999, the NHS Executive stated:
Mr. Dobson had concluded that relations between members of the Guild board had become irreconcilable and they have been asked to resign in the interests of the people the Trust serves.
The Secretary of State has made it clear to the five non-executives that he will consider applications for NHS trust board membership from any who resign but, in the interests of the effective management of the Trust, if they refuse to resign, they will be dismissed.
That is exactly what has happened.
What I find confusing is the disparity between the Secretary of State's statement during the debate, when he said that he did not have the power to sack NHS staff, and the press release, which states quite clearly that he did sack the non-executive directors.
Is the Secretary of State aware that it was the region's solicitor, Michael Edwards, who was urging caution? Is he aware that, on two separate occasions, board members wished to proceed with the removal of the chief executive? They were asked to halt discussions by the region because the matter was politically sensitive. Really? Politically sensitive to whom? When the board wished to use the sickness procedure—which would have brought the issue to a head—the dismissal letters for the non-executives arrived, and not the dismissal notice for the chief executive. He remained on suspension, but on full pay.
The subsequent sacking of the non-executives has enormous repercussions for other trust boards throughout the country. One board member contacted me, wishing to remain anonymous, and stated her fear that non-executives would have to toe the line or risk losing their positions. That simply cannot continue.
The three non-executives felt it wrong to resign because of the message that that would send to other non-executives. It might also be interpreted as a betrayal of those who had courageously given evidence to the Galbraith-Campbell inquiry. We must remember that Les Howell, the chief executive, was sacked only yesterday, so it is understandable that the non-executives wanted to see the matter through to the end. After all, they had instigated the report.
Both Mrs. Galbraith and Mr. Campbell have said that they are willing to speak to the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Preston and others about their findings. Why has the Secretary of State still not spoken to the authors of the report? Will the Minister assure the House that he accepts the findings and recommendations of the report, the appointment and terms of reference of which were agreed by the Government's north-west regional office?
Will the Minister confirm the necessity in cases such as this for protecting the evidence of whistleblowers who, without such protection, may feel too fearful of the consequences of speaking out about any problem besetting their health authority or NHS health trust? Does the Minister understand that the report was a consequence, and not the cause, of the chief executive's suspension, which was justified by the existing evidence? Does the Minister understand that the report was commissioned to investigate whether there had been a loss of confidence in the chief executive? It was not a disciplinary investigation.
Why was the acting chairman, Dr. Kendle, instructed not to operate the trust's sickness procedure in respect of the suspended chief executive when he started to submit sick notes to the trust in early April? Why were the non-executives instructed in April to stop everything and to do nothing with regard to the suspended chief executive? Why did the regional office of the Department of Health inform the three non-executive directors in May 1999 that the regional office had lost control of the situation four months previously?
Did not the Minister take the easy way out by removing all the non-executive directors, rather than those responsible for dysfunctional activities in respect of the suspended chief executive? Does the Minister feel that the new board will be compromised in view of the fate of the three predecessors, who acted with conviction, in good faith and on the instructions and advice of the north-west regional office of the Department of Health?
I want the Secretary of State to initiate a full public inquiry into the goings-on at the Guild trust since the publication of the Holden report. The Government were elected on a manifesto which promised openness and transparency. If the Minister stands by that, a public inquiry must be the next step. I understand that the hon. Member for Preston has stated that if the chief executive were dismissed, she would demand that a public inquiry be set up by the Secretary of State. Does she stand by those words? If so, I will be delighted if she joins me in asking the Secretary of State for a public inquiry, and I look forward to her giving evidence to such an inquiry.
This morning, the three non-executive directors who had been sacked issued a statement. Referring to the sacking of the chief executive yesterday, they said:
This decision by the new Trust Board totally justifies the stand we have taken. It completely exonerates our position because we are the very people who decided to dismiss the suspended chief executive officer because of the widespread loss of confidence in him and we three are the very people who were stopped from doing just that by political interference inside and outside the Trust.
We acted throughout on the instructions of the Regional Office of the Department of Health and on the advice of the solicitor nominated by the North West Regional Office. Our negotiations to terminate the Chief Executive's employment were frustrated by political interference from Mrs. Audrey Wise M. P. and from the North West Regional Office who twice halted and delayed those negotiations, the reason given being "political sensitivity". The nature of that political sensitivity has never been explained and it is surely a dangerous precedent for the internal affairs of a Trust to be disrupted on the basis of undisclosed political sensitivity.
It is most interesting that the announcement of the termination of the Chief Executive's employment should be made on the very morning of the day of the adjournment debate which has arisen as the result of our actions. No doubt people will draw their own conclusions from that.
This is not a party political issue. The Guild Trust's affairs are not just the province of Mrs. Audrey Wise M.P. but also of Nigel Evans M.P. and Michael Jack M.P. who asked us what on earth was


happening in the Trust. When we were invited to resign by the N.W. Regional office we were told that we had behaved impeccably, that we had not put a foot wrong and that they were most anxious to use our considerable expertise in the future in the service of the NHS. To have accepted that invitation would have compromised our integrity and made it impossible for us to speak out as we are doing now about the way that our role as non-executive directors has been disabled and undermined by political interference.
The Secretary of State must prove that he has the interests of the patients and the people of Ribble Valley and Preston, as well as non-executives in the rest of the country, at the forefront of his mind. The setting up of a public inquiry will enable him to do that. I know that the Minister will mention the words "fresh start", as if that could make everything right. Does not he accept what the non-executives say: that Les Howell was sacked only yesterday and that, as they had initiated that course of action, they should have seen it through to the end? What about the message sent to all the other non-executive directors? The Minister cannot hide behind a simple fresh start.
I understand that there are currently two vacancies in neighbouring trusts in Lancashire that members of the trust could have been offered straight away but were not. There are too many unanswered questions. The accusations of political interference are extremely serious and must be answered. The only way in which they can be fairly answered, in an open and transparent way, is through a public inquiry. That would be right for the three non-executives and for their colleagues throughout the country.
I understand that there is a painting in the Tate gallery by a Mr. Frank Dobson, called "Truth". I suspect that it was not painted by the person of that name who is Secretary of State for Health—

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): Pathetic.

Mr. Evans: What is pathetic is the way in which three non-executive directors who had done their job and blown the whistle on the chief executive who was mismanaging the trust were sacked by the Secretary of State, even though their view was endorsed by two reports.
I am asking the Minister to ensure that the truth comes out. The only way in which he can assure us of that is by immediately setting up a full independent inquiry to find out exactly what has gone on.

Mr. Michael Jack: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on the care and precision with which he ordered his account of what I believe is a scandalous situation in the Guild trust. He put on the record in fine detail a tale of growing difficulty that turned to concern, worry and despair for the non-executive directors as they went about their business. The people we are talking about are not party political appointees: they are citizens, chosen and approved by the Secretary of State as suitable people to be the representatives of the public in looking after the activities of the health trust.
I declare an interest in the sense that I am a non-executive director of a public limited company. Part of my role is to ensure that I represent the interests of the shareholders. If those who are in a paid managerial

position on the board of the company do something that they should not, or go against the requirements of company law, I must be prepared to be a whistleblower and take a stand against anything that threatens the well-being of the company concerned. I am pleased to say that, so far, I have not seen any examples that would cause me to exercise that responsibility.
I talked to Mrs. Walton and Mrs. Jolly at length on the telephone when they first drew my attention to the concerns that had been well reported in our local newspapers, especially the Lancashire Evening Post. Like any Member of Parliament, I am used to talking to people, and I heard much concern from Mrs. Walton and Mrs. Jolly about the public interest. I heard that they had been given those public appointments, and then done what they thought was right and what they had been appointed for. They did not like the way in which the trust was being run, so they found ways, in the context of the report on the Holden case—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley has mentioned—to investigate the criticisms that were made.
The two ladies went to the regional health authority and sought its advice on what they should do. The advice was clear: they were correct to ask for a further independent assessment. The two ladies did not rush into public print. When the Holden report was made available, they did not immediately table a motion of no confidence in the chief executive and others. Instead, they meticulously went about their business, as good directors should, and asked for an independent assessment of what had happened in the trust. They did not do that off their own bat, or try to find people who would write the report they wanted. Instead, they sought two people of knowledge and skill and found Galbraith and Campbell, both of whom had had considerable experience in the health service and who wrote the report.
I would have thought that the ladies were correct in the carrying out of their public duties. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley, in his closing remarks, touched on the central issue arising from the sacking of the three non-executive directors, and that is the question of what those people are supposed to do. What is their purpose? They are appointed to help to run and manage health trusts. However, the three in question were sacked for reasons as yet undisclosed.
We have read the reports in the newspapers, and my hon. Friend mentioned the claim that a fresh start was needed, and that there was disunity and disharmony on the board. All those reasons may be correct, and given the way in which the board was riven after the publication of the Galbraith and Campbell report, I am not surprised. However, sacking the non-executive directors was a funny way in which to treat honest people who were correctly executing their public duties. They were sacked unceremoniously, without any hearing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley said, Mrs. Jolly and Mrs. Walton would have spoken to anyone about what they had discovered.
When I heard about the matter, I tabled a series of what I considered to be sensible questions to the Secretary of State. I asked what discussions he had had with the North West regional health authority on the appointment of investigators to report on the administration of the Guild trust during 1998 and 1999. I was informed that the Secretary of State would let me have a reply "as soon as possible."
The Secretary of State's Department is on top of what is going on. It is clear that there was a high level of communication between the region and the centre, because the regional health authority suddenly found itself subcontracted as the Secretary of State's agent in the process of dismissal.
The assiduous Caroline Hastie, the health correspondent on the Lancashire Evening Post, wrote an article headlined, "Health Chiefs Ordered to Resign". In a sentence above the headline, the article stated that the Secretary of State had told
bosses to quit by end of day".
Caroline Hastie is a good reporter, not prone to exaggeration. She checks her facts and does the job properly; she saw the hand of the Secretary of State in the matter. However, when we checked behind the scenes, the Secretary of State had shuffled off the stage and the regional health authority was left holding the baby.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley mentioned the authority's remarks about the matter being out of control. They show the state of desperation that the Secretary of State had reached. Like Pontius Pilate, he wanted to wash his hands of the affair and let the crowd decide the outcome. I do not know which part of the crowd decided the fate of the three non-executives, but that is the first smell that rises from this affair.
In the second of my questions, I asked the Secretary of State in what ways he had involved the chairman of the North West regional health authority in seeking the resignations of the non-executive directors. The next part of this sorry tale is really nasty. The Secretary of State did not have the openness to write letters to the non-executive directors, whom he must have trusted because he appointed them. By telephone, they told me that they received call after call, with mounting frequency, from the regional health authority, trying to persuade them to tender their resignations.
That is a nasty way to go about it. If those people had done something wrong, was there not a more open and straightforward way to tell them what the problem was? Apparently there was not, but I do not think that Mrs. Jolly and Mrs. Walton have made up the story for effect. I spoke to them, independently and without forewarning, on the same day. They could not have colluded, as there was no time between calls for them to decide to tell me the same story, but they both told me the same facts about the series of telephone calls.
In preparation for this debate, the Minister will have been briefed with a lot of background material. His civil servants will have gathered—from the regional health authority, the Guild trust, and elsewhere—a lot of material from which to synthesise the 15-minute reply that we shall enjoy at the end of the debate. The advice will have been given that some things should be said, and some other things should be left unsaid. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley has called for a public inquiry, as I suspect that we shall not get to the bottom of the matter.

Mr. Denham: indicated dissent.

Mr. Jack: The Minister displays a little tetchiness. He wants his chance, but I am sorry to have to tell him

that those non-executive directors have looked to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley and me to place on the record matters about which the Minister may feel deeply uncomfortable, so I have no hesitation in pressing on with my analysis.
The telling question that the Secretary of State failed to answer was simple: would he list the grounds on which he dismissed the board of the Guild trust, Preston? I still do not know why he did that, and he should tell us, in public. I asked whether he would list occasions on which the non-executive directors of the trust sought advice from the North West regional health authority on the way in which the trust was being run, and what advice was given. We should be entitled to know, but all I received on both questions was a holding answer.
I asked whether the Secretary of State would publish correspondence between his Department, the health authority and the chief executive of the trust, during 1998 and 1999, on the chief executive's administration of the trust during that period. I believed that there must have been some comment from the centre on all that was going on. However, I received only a holding answer to that question. I asked questions about meetings and communications involving the Department and the chief executive. I received another holding answer. Finally, when I asked what reports the Department had received on the administration of the trust during the past two years and what conclusions had been drawn, I received another holding answer.
In this age of open government, Members of Parliament should be able to expect answers to sensible, searching questions. The holding answer came on 25 May. By now, I surely should have had a further response. If the Secretary of State can sack the chief executive during the time it has taken me to table questions, I am distressed by the lack of an answer to them. I have received an answer to a couple of other questions, which told me to look in the Library. There we have it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley was right to read the statement published today by those who have been affected by this matter. I shall not detain the House by re-reading the statement, but it was clearly a plea from the heart from good people who feel deeply let down by what has happened. I am not surprised by that. My hon. Friend quoted extensively from the Galbraith-Campbell report, and I shall put on record exactly who the authors are. Mrs. Ann Campbell was formerly the chairman of the Royal Victoria Infirmary and Associated Hospitals NHS trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, a trust often cited and lauded by Ministers. Mr. Neil Campbell was chief executive of Dumfries and Galloway health board. Both know what they are doing when it comes to the health service.
My hon. Friend did not quote page 13 of the report. I do not criticise him for that; many parts of the report deserve detailed comments from the Minister. Page 13 notes:
A major concern of the panel was the allegation of poor external relations with purchasers, the Region, the University, the Unions, the CHC.
It goes on:
Purchasers indicated that they are concerned about an atmosphere of secrecy, lack of openness and an unwillingness to accept the role of the Health Authorities in developing and planning".


The university representatives said that they had a
lack of a feeling of partnership with the Trust, which appeared to regard the University resource as a free good to be milked and used.
The union representatives
voiced lack of confidence in Mr Howell, evidenced by their wish some time ago to push forward a vote of no confidence in him." 
The report goes on:
The panel is aware of steps which Mr Howell took in relation to North West Lancs Health Authority, where a high level of personal animosity had developed between Mr Howell and Mr Edmundson"—
the authority's chief executive.
I could go on quoting the report, independent evidence that surely emphasises why the three non-executives took it upon themselves to investigate the sordid dealings in the trust. Their reward for being public minded, for doing their job, for blowing the whistle and for taking the lid off a miserable can of worms has been summary dismissal by, we think, the Secretary of State or one of his agents, without explanation, without any letter and without any kind of alternative employment in the health service.
What an advertisement for public service. The whole matter stinks. The only way in which we will get to the bottom of the matter is if the Minister will tonight endorse and agree to the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley that there should be a public inquiry.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on obtaining this debate. Indeed, I am grateful to him for raising the issue of the Guild Community Health Care NHS trust and to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) for participating in the debate. I am also grateful to them for mentioning the actions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State felt it necessary to take on the membership of the trust board. I am grateful because these are important events and it is important to put on record the role of Ministers and officials in this sequence of events. I do not believe that those events fit the construction put on them in the debate.
I apologise to the House as I will, perhaps inevitably, cover some of the same ground as the right hon. Member for Fylde and the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, but it is important to put these matters on the record. First, I confirm that the new chairman of the Guild trust has now written to Mr. Howell, the suspended chief executive, to inform him that his employment will be terminated as from next Friday, 11 June. That decision was taken unanimously by the chairman and her new non-executive team, which concluded that it was in the best interest of the trust.
Our first priority, and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, throughout this unhappy episode has been to ensure that the best interests of patients are served. Given the events at the trust in recent months, we needed to be confident that the Guild trust was being properly managed and that there was mutual trust between all the board members. That was most definitely not the case. Indeed, the non-executive team had become dysfunctional. There were two camps within the trust board and while that continued it was going to be

impossible for people to exercise their corporate role effectively. That is why it was felt necessary to make an entirely fresh start with a new board.
Although, my right hon. Friend valued the contribution that all the non-executive directors had made to the running of the trust, he was determined not to apportion individual blame for their failure to achieve a unified board. He sought their resignations so that they could all serve the NHS in the future.
It would be helpful if I set out the events that have occurred at the Guild trust, which have led us to the position that we are in today. The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed to the independent inquiry into the care of Daniel Holden as being the starting point for the scrutiny of management practice at the Guild trust. East Lancashire health authority commissioned that inquiry following the murder by Mr. Holden of a neighbour in Darwen, Lancashire, in March 1996. At the time of the offence, Mr. Holden was a patient of the Guild trust and was living in the community.
In assessing the role of the trust in caring for Daniel Holden, the inquiry report was highly critical of the management style adopted by the chief executive, Mr. Les Howell. It described him—I may be quoting the same passage of the report that was quoted earlier—as being "detached, uninvolved and autocratic", and asserted that his
responsibilities had not been adequately discharged".
The report recommended that the trust board should consider how to bring about the changes in management style that were necessary to enable the trust to make a fresh start.
A first draft of the Holden report was made available to trust board members in September last year. Having considered the report's findings, it was at this point that three executive and three non-executive directors decided to make known to the NHS Executive regional office their concerns about the way in which the trust was being managed. They met the north-west regional chairman, Professor Alasdair Breckenridge, and the regional director, Mr. Robert Tinston, on 1 October. They said at that meeting that their concerns pre-dated the inquiry report into Daniel Holden and that they had no confidence that their chairman would ensure that the report's criticisms were properly addressed.
A further meeting was held on 6 October between the trust chair, Mrs. Patricia Diamond, the regional chairman and the regional director, about the position of the trust chief executive. After that meeting and following consultation by the regional office with the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, Mrs. Diamond announced on 8 October that Mr. Howell had been suspended on full pay and without prejudice.
There followed an extraordinary meeting of the trust board on 13 October at which it was unanimously agreed to confirm the suspension of Mr. Howell. At the same meeting, the board unanimously agreed to commission an independent inquiry. Mrs. Ann Galbraith, former chairman of the Royal Victoria Infirmary and Associated Hospitals NHS trust in Newcastle, was chosen to chair it. She was assisted by Mr. Neil Campbell, chief executive of the Dumfries and Galloway health board.

Mr. Jack: In his opening comments, the Minister said that there were two camps, or divisiveness, on the board.


Did not his last two statements about the board's unanimous decisions on key elements of the investigation of Mr. Howell's performance show that there was unanimity of purpose and action on those two vital points?

Mr. Denham: There was unanimity on that issue but there clearly was not on other issues. I shall explain in a moment why that judgment was reached.
The inquiry's terms of reference were drawn up by the trust board in consultation with the regional office and focused on the criticisms of Mr. Howell that had appeared in the draft report into the care and treatment of Daniel Holden; Mr. Howell's reaction to that report; his management style; and the conduct of working relationships. Throughout all those events, Ministers' offices were kept informed of developments at the Guild trust and the course of action adopted by the trust board.
Mrs. Galbraith's report was submitted to the trust board last December. It was a confidential document and not formally in the public domain, although its contents have been widely reported. Passages have been quoted this evening. Essentially, it confirmed many of the Holden report's criticisms of Mr. Howell. However, it acknowledged that its terms of reference meant that it did not contain details of successful initiatives of the trust under Mr. Howell's leadership. In addition to the criticisms of Mr. Howell, the Galbraith report also criticised the chairman's excessively close working relationship with the chief executive, which it argued had interfered with effective balance and control in the trust.
The trust chair and non-executives met on 29 December and again on 5 January to consider the report's findings and its five recommendations. They agreed that the chief executive's position had become untenable and that there could be no possibility of his reinstatement. However, they were unable to progress the report's other recommendations and it was becoming increasingly obvious that there were deep divisions between three non-executives on the one hand and the chairman and the other two non-executives on the other about the trust's future management.
It emerged that a vote of no confidence in the chairman was likely to be tabled at the board meeting on 19 January by the three non-executives who had originally approached the regional office with their concerns. Given that likelihood, the trust chairman approached the regional chairman for advice and, with reluctance, tendered her resignation on 11 January. That left five non-executives to conduct the trust's business, including the implementation of all aspects of the Galbraith report. Dr. Roger Kendle, a non-executive at the trust, was elected acting chairman after Mrs. Diamond's resignation. However, it became clear that despite the continued suspension of Mr. Howell and the resignation of Mrs. Diamond, the non-executives remained divided over matters relating to the chief executive's position and did not give appropriate attention to other aspects of the Galbraith recommendations.
Significantly, one of the report's five recommendations was to take firm and immediate action to restore confidence in the board's leadership. Sadly, even with a new acting chairman, the board failed fully to consider and address that issue and there continued to be two

camps at board level. The three NEDs who broadly accepted all the recommendations of the Galbraith report were advised by Mrs. Galbraith that the trust was no further forward on 19 February, when she met them, than it had been in October.
Ministers received regular reports about those events from the north-west regional office. The Secretary of State visited the NHS Direct site in Chorley on 13 March and took the opportunity to discuss the case with the regional chairman and regional director, who expressed the view that relations on the board had broken down and that a fresh start was required.
In April, the regional chairman recommended to the Secretary of State that he should appoint Mrs. Christine Kirk to chair the trust on a short-term basis until a full-time appointment could be made.

Mr. Evans: I have listened carefully to the Minister's comments. Why were the three non-executive directors told by regional personnel—who were backing them in their action—that the region had lost control four months ago? Will the Minister tell us why he believes that the region had lost control and to whom?

Mr. Denham: On the information available to me, I cannot substantiate the claim made by the hon. Gentleman that the regional office had lost control. I understand that the matter was discussed on 13 March by the regional director, the regional chairman and my right hon. Friend. In that meeting, the view was expressed that relations on the board had broken down and that a fresh start was required. The regional chairman recommended the appointment of Mrs. Christine Kirk to chair the trust. She was chair of the nearby Calderstones NHS trust, having been appointed—as it happens—by the previous Conservative Administration, and was seen as having the necessary skills and experience to guide the Guild trust through a difficult period.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Mrs. Kirk on 19 April and concluded that she was the right person to undertake the job. She agreed to take up the post temporarily for a six-month period, before returning to the Calderstones trust. Her appointment was formally confirmed on 17 May. Before her formal appointment took effect, my right hon. Friend discussed the future working of the board with Mrs. Kirk. He had formed the view that the trust needed a fresh start with a completely new set of non-executive board members in place. Mrs. Kirk had also reviewed the minutes of previous board discussions and had concluded that the five existing non-executive directors could not work as a team and that to remove either grouping would be to apportion blame. She therefore agreed with my right hon. Friend that a fresh start would be in the best interests of the trust.
My right hon. Friend, however, did not wish to deprive the five non-executives of the opportunity to serve the NHS again. That is why at the end of April, they were informally invited by the regional chairman to submit their resignations from the trust board. My right hon. Friend did not want to terminate their appointments, as that would debar them from holding office again.
Two of the non-executives, Mr. Mallidi and Mr. Nelson, indicated their willingness to resign. However, the other three non-executives—Dr. Kendle,


Mrs. Jolly and Mrs. Walton—advised the regional chairman that they wanted time to consider their position. They wrote to my right hon. Friend on 10 May setting out the reasons why they felt that they should not resign.
My right hon. Friend replied on 12 May, explaining in detail why he felt that a change was necessary. He again emphasised that his first priority was to ensure that the trust was being properly run and was functioning effectively for the benefit of the patients. He made clear his view that, to ensure the successful operation of the Guild trust, there needed to be mutual trust between members of the non-executive team across the complete range of activities.
While stressing that he did not apportion any individual blame, my right hon. Friend said he had formed the view that it would not be in the best interests of the trust, its employees and, most important, those who depended on its services for the non-executive team to stay in post. He believed that a completely fresh start was needed to overcome the complex problems that had beset the Guild trust for far too long. In his letter, my right hon. Friend made it clear that, were he obliged to terminate their period of office, that would debar them from holding office again. Resignation, on the other hand, would allow them to serve the NHS again. Two of the non-executive directors acknowledged that and duly tendered their resignations.
Regrettably, the other three non-executives remained unwilling to resign. In the circumstances, my right hon. Friend felt it necessary to terminate their terms of appointment. That took effect on 18 May. On the same date, a new complement of non-executive directors was appointed to serve on the board. They had been selected by a process that was entirely in accordance with the normal procedures and criteria for NHS appointments, and in line with the guidance issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and the commissioner was briefed personally about the appointments on 19 May.
I am confident that, under new leadership, the Guild trust will be able to put behind it the managerial problems that have occurred. However, recent events should not be allowed to detract from the contribution the previous non-executives made, for which we are grateful. There is no question of people being penalised as a result of passing on their concerns. Let me make it clear: the three non-executives were right to approach the regional office with their concerns about the management of the trust. Where we disagree with them is on whether the trust could continue to operate under a new chairman, but with the same non-executives. We did not believe that this was either realistic or in the best interests of the trust and, given the reluctance of three of the non-executives to resign, my right hon. Friend terminated their appointments.
This has been an extremely unhappy episode and one which, thankfully, is a rare if not unique occurrence.

Mr. Jack: Does the Minister not understand from the exchanges that he has detailed that the non-executive

directors who chose not to resign did so on points of principle and honour? They believed that they were right in the stand that they had taken and that, if they resigned, the action would be misconstrued as implying that they had made a wrong judgment.

Mr. Denham: I hope that that is not the case. By placing on the record my view and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the non-executive directors were right to approach the regional office in the way that they did, I hope to have ensured that there can be no criticism or question marks in respect of their activities on that occasion. However, given the history of the trust, the decision had to be made as to the right basis for effective leadership on the board which would enable the problems of the past to be put behind the Guild trust and ensure that patients were served well in future. That is the only basis on which my right hon. Friend exercised his judgment in the way I have described.
As I said, these events are rare, if not unique. Not only were there problems of management and leadership at the Guild trust, but they were accompanied by a lack of common purpose and corporate identity among the non-executive board members. It is inevitable that, from time to time, such problems will happen among any group of people who work together, however deep their personal commitment to the NHS. Unfortunately, in the case of the Guild trust, those difficulties coincided with other managerial problems at the trust and we could not allow the situation to continue.

Mr. Evans: Does the Minister not accept that too many unanswered questions still hang over the whole affair? Christine Kirk will be a superb chairman of the trust and I wish her and the new board well in getting on with providing the service that is needed in the area. However, the three non-executives did nothing wrong: they were doing their job when they blew the whistle on the chief executive who was mismanaging the trust, yet their reward has been dismissal. That cannot be right. The only way to answer the questions that remain is to hold a full independent inquiry. Will the Minister give those non-executive directors that inquiry?

Mr. Denham: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's suggestions and I have set out as clearly as I can the sequence of events, the actions taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and officials and the basis on which decisions were made. I cannot see how a further inquiry into events at the Guild trust would play any constructive role in enabling the new board and those who work for the trust to meet the needs of patients and develop services in the area. I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to consider my remarks, he will see that there has been a clear basis for the decisions that have been taken, and that those decisions were taken in the best interests of the NHS and the Guild trust, and of the patients and communities they serve.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Ten o'clock.